Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Page move ban

Discussion (Dicklyon)

I hate to do this, but IMHO, it is time that Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was banned from moving pages. His moves of railway related articles are often controversial and challenged, yet he continues to move pages without discussion.

Evidence of this can be seen at

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_37#Recent article moves removing capitalisation of 'line'
• talk:Woodhead line#Page move
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Foo Line or Foo line?

and elsewhere. The most recent I'm aware of was this move of the Harz Narrow Gauge Railway article which was reverted 3 hours later. That article has been at its current title since April 2009, when it was moved from the German title to its English equivalent in accordance with WP:UE.

Therefore, I propose the following editing restriction:-

Dicklyon is permanently banned from moving any page. He may request page moves through WP:RM, allowing for discussion and consensus to be reached. Mjroots (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Dicklyon has been notified of this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support The MOS:CAPS (and MOS:everything else) army have driven enough editors who were far more productive than them away from Wikipedia already; we could probably do with them giving it a rest. Black Kite (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

If I had any idea who or what you're referring to I would respond. This is ridiculous. Dicklyon (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support but it's not enough. The in-article changes are as much of a problem as the page moves. This needs to be broader.

This has particularly been a problem with automated search-and-replace changes, enforcing MOS changes onto the titles of cited books or external businesses. If MOS can be enforced automatically, then have a 'bot do it. If it can't be done so easily, then it needs care. Dicklyon just doesn't see this, he thinks all text strings must conform to some arbitrary MOS rule, no matter the context or consensus. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

That's not what I think. If you have a complaint about what I do, make it explicit, as did you before and I promptly apologized for my mistake and fixed it. Dicklyon (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't give a damn what you think. What you think is clear, and it's so far from what a significant number of other editors think that we are now here at ANI, discussing whether or not to formally prohibit you from continuing to edit in the way that you think. This is no longer about what you think any more, it's a matter for other editors to decide. You might try to influence us that such changes were right, or that you're no longer going to cause a problem with them, but it's now out of your hands as to whether you'll still be permitted to make them. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I was pushing back on your assertion of what I think. I agree that what I think is not very relevant here, and can't be objectly discussed or evaluated, so why would you insert your opinion of what I think into this discussion? Dicklyon (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• And now you've found a new target, Talk:L1A1 self-loading rifle#Requested move 7 January 2017, to push this same agenda that a simplistic style guide always overrules all subjects, no matter what the context. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

So now I'm not allowed to express an opinion and share book evidence in a requested move discussion? What happend to WP:BRD? Dicklyon (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Express away. But if you're trying to make a case that you can express judgement over renames rather than a blind compulsion to impose one rule, over all others, then it's not really helping you. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see the problem here. At a glance, and as a person unacquainted with these matters, Dicklyon seems to want to bring capitalization of titles in line with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters, which says that capitals should be reserved for proper names. That seems unobjectionable to me. It's of course possible that this (like other MOS issues) can give rise to heated disputes in individual cases, but neither the request nor the links provided appear immediately indicative of any serious conduct problems concerning Dicklyon, let alone problems warranting a ban.  Sandstein  15:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Dicklyon doesn't seem to understand what a "Proper Noun Phrase" is, which is why the Bittern Line article was moved to Bittern line, despite it being heavily marketed as the Bittern Line by the TOC, Broads Authority and Tourist Information Board. There are many other examples of such moves, most of which have been challenged. Mjroots (talk)
    • And in the ensuing RMs, virtually no one agrees that what you want to label a proper name/proper noun actually is one. People who have neither a background in linguistics nor in philosophy rarely get the nuances correct, and frequently think that anything often capitalized is a proper name, and they're simply incorrect on that. I've seen that very argument advanced multiple times in the very discussions under issue, often commingled with the additional fallacy that anything that governmental sources capitalize must be a proper name, even though we know that official-ese wantonly capitalizes everything it can as form of emphasis.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef Dicklyon was unblocked under the standard offer with the condition that he did not return to carrying out controversial page moves. He has previously been prohibited from carrying out page moves. WP:ROPE... Keri (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  No, he was not prohibited from carrying out page moves, that restriction was from "large scale, potentially controversial actions such as mass page moves" (my emphasis). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  "...such as..." (my emphasis.) Keri (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  (EC) Agree here, the restriction was on controversial actions, not on mass page moves, that was just an example of a controversial action. Normally just moving a page to a hyphen-dehyphen would not be controversial, however Dicklyon knows perfectly well it is, has been told before not to do it without discussion, and I think this is the second report in as many weeks about Narrow Gauge hypenation? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  @Keri: - that is not the proposal on the table. Let's discuss the page move ban, and if enacted see how things go from there. Should it prove necessary, a CBAN discussion can be raised at some point in the future. I hope it won't come to that. Mjroots (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  I hear you, but the page move ban is effectively already in place. Dicklyon has ploughed on with controversial page moves regardless (see eg the comment below from Bradv). Keri (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, but he was *not* "prohibited from carrying out page moves". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  If you are referring - which your quote suggests - to the 3rd link in my comment, it is quite explicit: "I'm imposing a six-month ban on page moves except through WP:RM" (my emphasis) Keri (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  @Keri: You are correct, and I apologise for my mistake. In April 2015 he was indeed prohibited from page moves for a period of six months. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I went to Dicklyon's talk page to complain about an inappropriate page move, and saw this thread. Bradv 16:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: RM is the prescribed process for determining page names (a content dispute), and these moves mostly go the direction DickLyon proposes. Many of them are edge cases or grey areas, and the reason we have RM process, instead of people moving pages at whim and moving them back, is to have consensus discussions about what the page should be named, based on what policies, guidelines and evidence, and for a body of such discussions over time to make these areas less grey and less edgy, so debate about them ceases. The fact that some of the move proposals don't succeed doesn't somehow mean that DickLyon is being disruptive, it means that DickLyon is not infallible and that the process is working. What is really going on here is that WP is beset by a large number of overcapitalizers (especially for WP:SSF reasons) and people who don't understand the difference between hyphens and dashes. They are naturally, as an aggregate class, going to be irritated by someone who focuses on cleanup of excessive capitalization (against WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS) and incorrect use of horizontal line glyphs (under MOS:DASH), and who like to gang up on him at RM and, periodically, ANI – frequently making uncivil accusations about him in the process. Their own behavior needs to be examined. ANI is not a venue for circumventing RM or any other WP:PROCESS; we have those for a reason. The particular locus of this new dispute seems to be rail transit fans, who are a "particular" lot. But they cannot agree even amongst themselves; our transit and transport articles display a wide variety of conflicting styles, even with regard to the same transit system (e.g. Van Ness Station versus Fruitvale station in the San Francisco Bay Area), and the train fans, highway cataloguers, and other topical camps in the general category frequently contradict each other. With very few exceptions, these editors have no linguistic, professional copyediting, or other background in language and style matters, nor in philosophy (where the nature of what proper names really are is also debated at length), and incorrectly insist that everything they ever see capitalized for any reason in any kind of writing (e.g. signage) is a proper name, and/or that anything with any kind of label, designation, or categorization has a proper name, or both, and they are flat out incorrect. These RM discussion need to happen, with sufficient input and in sufficient number that an actual consensus emerges. Or hold a site-wide RfC on the matter at WP:VPPOL. ANI is not the venue for settling content disputes, and this is entirely a content dispute. This type of content dispute (cf. 2014 huge RfC about capitalization of common names of species, for example) can get heated, but most of the invective about it is hot air and it will dissipate once a consensus emerges one way or the other.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

FTR, Van Ness and Fruitvale are stations on different systems. I would have thought you of all people would know that. EEng 17:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

BART and Muni overlap through most of their downtown SF length, sharing stations (which are city property), and those of us who use them to commute do so as a unified system, with a unified pass, called Clipper. Which governmental body technically owns each station isn't relevant to the points I'm making. And I could have picked other examples, e.g. two Muni stations, or whatever. I just picked two I use every weekday.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

As a former BART consultant I can assure you BART and Muni are hardly a unified system, though it's good to know that the elusive goal of getting patrons to feel that way has been achieved, at least in your case. Your example amused me because I had a front-row seat for this precise station/Station interagency debate in the 90s. The four downtown SF stations are either joint BART/Muni property, or BART property partly leased to Muni -- can't remember which -- but certainly not "city" property. I'm only giving you a hard time because I know you have high standards so you'd want to be set straight. EEng 20:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough! Now I'm curious about those station/Station arguments, but that's for another page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support WP:RM#CM is clear: "The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. The move is potentially controversial if any of the following apply:" when point three applies: "Someone could reasonably disagree with the move." Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per Dicklyon's explanation below, which, if an accurate reflection of his page moves, seems reasonable. Paul August ☎ 20:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support I challenged Dickylon's move of the British narrow gauge slate railways article. He doesn't appear to be interested in following Wikipedia's conventions, or even his own conventions. He is only interested in imposing his own specific interpretations of grammatical rules, no matter the context or the rationales involved.

A few examples. He first claimed that "narrow gauge" should be converted to "narrow-gauge" because Google n-gram search (a notably unreliable mechanism, per Wikipedia's own article) showed that the hyphenated version was the more common. Then when I demonstrated that the common usage in British railway articles was unhypenated, he dismissed that evidence because it was from the specialist press, citing WP:SSF. Okay, so I demonstrated that the usage in the general British press was "narrow gauge" and he dismissed that because newspapers "don't count". He's never explained why newspapers don't count, even though WP:SSF explicitly says they do. All this is at Talk:British narrow gauge railways. He won't accept any evidence that contradicts his personally held beliefs, even when his own guidelines disagree with him. This makes it impossible to have a rational debate with Dickylon. The only rules he wants to follow exist in his mind.

Much worse though, he started to move articles that contained the word "narrow gauge" to their hyphenated version. I politely asked him to revert he changes while the debate continued on Talk:British narrow gauge railways. My understanding is he should at least have waited for the debate to finish before imposing his own interpretation across Wikipedia. Instead he continued on his crusade, ignoring my objections and those of others. I asked him again to stop, pointing him to the debate he had already taken part in. Yet he continued moving pages.

Even when the debate on the talk page was completed and he had failed to generate consensus, he continued to move pages, including the very page under debate.

How is this okay? He is imposing his personal interpretation against consensus, and against guidelines. Far from following policies like [{WP:BRD]] he is riding roughshod over the spirit and letter of Wikipedia at every turn. It's hugely frustrating and a massive waste of time, energy and goodwill. Railfan23 (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you link where you say you challenged my move of the British narrow gauge slate railways article? I think you're mistaken there, along with much of the rest of what you say about me, like what I'm interested in (which is neither true nor relevant), or that I "first claimed that "narrow gauge" should be converted to "narrow-gauge" because Google n-gram search showed that the hyphenated version was the more common". I did not; the n-gram search was about evidence, not about a reason; if you see a place where I said something inappropriate, link it and let others see, too. And if these "narrow-gauge" moves are so bad, why have practically none of them been reverted? The narrow gauge slate railways this morning was the first, I think; and the other one this morning at Harz Narrow Gauge Railways, which I had not known about before this AN/I complaint, since I was sleeping. At the RM discussion, you were the only one opposed to the hyphen, with your silly Br/Am theory that I disproved; nobody backed you up on that pushback, because it made no sense. Bermicourt tried that later in a different context, but then resorted to a much more plausible rationale for the Harz, saying it's the official company name (even though the official company name is actually German and the article is about the lines, more than about the company, and even though it appears lowercase a lot in English-language books, but those are points I'll bring up if we do an RM later; for now, I've been reverted on that one, so next we discuss). So only two reverts out of all these horrible moves, and both while I slept this morning, is reason to ban me from page moving? Dicklyon (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

First, apologies, I got the detail wrong. I objected to your mass move of articles and only to your proposed move of British narrow gauge slate railways here. Your first justification of the hyphenated version in Talk:British narrow gauge slate railways was this one at which you explicitly cite the Google n-gram search. You gave no other justification for why the hyphenated version should be preferred. You may have intended that to be "evidence", not a "reason" - but a reasonable reading of what you wrote, is that you are saying the n-gram search is the justification for your proposed hyphenation.

It was only [later that you said] WP:SSF was the justification for changing "narrow gauge" to "narrow-gauge". Though of course you only apply the very small bit of that guideline that agrees with your personal opinion, and continue to ignore the rest. If you won't stand consistently behind the guideline, don't quote it at all.

I did not revert your page moves because I believe it is better to discuss instead of imposing my opinion. I asked you, twice, on your talk page to revert the moves. I thought that was more productive than just reverting you, and also believed I clearly expressed my wish for them to be reverted. Will you really only respect the outcome of a discussion if you have been reverted first? My objection was just as clear as reverting would have been, while being less disruptive and more respectful. You just continued on making changes over objections, while the debate was still running. Railfan23 (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

This venting is off-base and misplaced. See MOS:HYPHEN: narrow-gauge is hyphenated when used as an adjective because compound adjectives are hyphenated (in WP's formal/academic register, anyway, even if some news-style publishers are dropping the practice; WP is not written in news style). As I said above, that's is just an attempt to re-litigate a content dispute in the wrong forum. Your disagreement (a factually incorrect one and WP:POLICY-contradicting one) against Dick_lyon is not an ANI matter, but an RM one. The move in question should certainly not be controverted by a reasonable person, since it comports with both our style guide and other major style guides and grammatical works; the objection is not reasonable. Next, you're welcome to use WP:RM#CM to contest an undiscussed move and open a full RM on it. That's the standardized process for this; ANI is not it. I have to wonder, when this is not done and people open bogus ANIs instead, if its because they suspect that a full RM will (as is typically the case) agree with the move that DL made. PS: I note that some of the "examples" of "disruptive moves" mentioned here were in fact already upheld by RMs; so people are trying to punish DL for successfully demonstrating consensus via the prescribed processes. That strikes me as WP:WIKILAWYERING and WP:SYSTEMGAMING.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this is the wrong forum, but I did not bring this here, and it is appropriate for me to respond to Dicklyon's queries. Please don't imply otherwise.

You assert that no reasonable person could revert Dicklyon's moves. It is clearly not the case that all style guides agree with you, nor that the general usage agrees. WP:NOT#NEWS applies to content not style, so isn't relevant. MOS:HYPHEN includes suggestions on hyphenation, not incontrovertible rules. Your own guideline WP:SSF says "Wikipedia and its Manual of Style, article titles policy, and related guidance draw primarily upon reliable general-purpose, broad-scope sources for editing guidelines. These sources include the best-accepted style guides for formal writing – like the current editions of The Chicago Manual of Style ... as well as observation of what is most commonly done in reliable general-audience publications like newspapers and non-specialized magazines and websites". So this assertion that newspaper usage doesn't count is frightfully convenient, but not actually correct.

If there was an indisputable hyphenation rule, then Dicklyon's approach might be sound. But there isn't, and simply asserting that there is doesn't make it so. Given there are reasonable grounds to debate this, we should seek consensus instead of imposing one particular interpretation, especially while the debate is still going on. The real issue is not the merit of a hyphenation rule, but how Dicklyon interacts with other editors. Ignoring requests and on-going debates, constantly changing the goalposts, refusing to debate substantive arguments, ignoring the parts of rules that contradict his position while rigorously enforcing other parts. These are not in the spirit of Wikipedia and should be discussed. Railfan23 (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that there's an indisputable hyphenation rule. All guides talk about having to make choices. But generally, the choice is not that hard, as in this case, and your dispute of it was based on a bogus Br/Am claim, and later on a claim that the hyphen slows the reader down. It became clear that you don't understand hyphens. Nobody else supported you on either of those bogus theories, nor objected on any other basis, until Bermicourt much later and independently came up with the same bogus Br/Am theory (where is this coming from?). Go check some style and grammar books, then we can discuss more. Dicklyon (talk) 06:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Railfan23: Read what you cite. Direct quote from WP:NOT#NEWS: "Wikipedia is also not written in news style." That invalidates your entire line of reasoning, that you can rely on news style against MoS. And, yes, DL is correct that your attempt to make this out to be some kind of WP:ENGVAR matter was also faulty.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support The Manual of Style isn't something to blindly obey, it's a guideline. Using it as an excuse to unilaterally push through page moves that don't have any consensus, and refusing to accept that you may be wrong even when the specific things you've done wrong are pointed out to you, is evidence enough that this editor does not have (or does not use) the expertise required to perform page moves. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

See the many relevant RMs; I'm generally careful to stay with consensus when making moves. Dicklyon (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support Mainly because I was already watching the discussion Railfan talks about above, and its clear Dicklyon has no real interest in evidence that doesnt support his preferred version. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Come on, Only, there's no policy about what things I need to have a real interest in. If I did something wrong, say what; or at least say what evidence you think I've done the crime of not being interested in. Dicklyon (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe the term is 'moving the goalposts'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose—Largely per Sandstein, above. This is an abuse of the ANI forum by partisans: very sad to see. Mjroots, you write: "Dicklyon doesn't seem to understand what a 'Proper Noun Phrase' is" (I presume you didn't mean to capitalise it)—tell us, what exactly does it mean, and how is it different from a proper name? Tony (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Dicklyon may occasionally come across as overly pedantic but he is a constructive editor following our policies and guidelines and this is a gross overreaction to a disagreement over whether those policies and guidelines should be followed (on which Dicklyon is, as usual, on the correct side). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. After taking the standard offer, users really need to be on their best behavour from that point on. Yet barely a year later, here we are. I agree with Black Kite's impressions regarding the negative effect of the overly-pedantic MOS editors. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Black Kite had no actual complaint about me. But you, like him, think I should be banned for what some unspecified other group of editors has done in the past? Gee, thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Lenahan, you've made an overtly political statement. I do believe that this forum should minimise political content, just as it should try to distance itself from the personal. In my view, this is a problem with the whole thread. Dicklyon might simply be reminded of the need for care and consultation, and this matter should be thrown out so we can get on with more important things. Tony (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to disagree if you wish, but I have as much right to speak as you do. In fact, if anything the general obnoxiousness and failure to get the point by Dicklyon and his cohorts in this very discussion has further convinced me that this is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with. I stand firmly behind every single word. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Let me see if I have this right.
1. Anyone supporting Dicklyon is a "cohort" and their opinions can therefore be dismissed (however, the reverse is not true).
2. Your opposition's failure to concede is further proof that they are wrong and that "this is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with".
That is some of the most remarkable reasoning I've seen in awhile, even in MoS wars. Stand behind it all you like. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

All he did was repeat Black Kite's accusation (or "impressions") of unspecified past transgressions by unspecified editors, as "the negative effect of the overly-pedantic MOS editors". Nothing to refute, nothing to stand behind. I agree it's remarkable, the extent to which he wants to say nothing. We can get the point that he is somehow frustrated about wikignomes and the MOS. It happens. And Meryl Streep is way over-rated. Dicklyon (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

There must be a term for framing a debate in a way that makes it impossible to lose and therefore not a true debate. This is not the first time I've encountered that tactic; not too long ago a 50,000-edit editor stated that the best way to demonstrate my good faith was to agree with his viewpoint. It was bulletproof! Anybody know the term for that? ―Mandruss ☎ 06:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

"Rhetorically brilliant but intellectually dishonest?" Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. The claim that Dicklyon is doing mass page moves has no credible evidence. It appears he's prohibited from taking controversial actions, which is an absurd restriction, to too vague to be taken seriously. Under the circumstances, it might be best if he refrained from making controversial moves without an RfC or RM request, but making it a restriction is unjustified. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  How are we defining "mass"? Dicklyon move log Keri (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  That's a cool tool I wasn't aware of; thanks for showing us. It shows 250 article moves (plus the corresponding talk pages) since Dec. 4, or about 7.5 per day, somewhat lower than my guess of average 10 per day over the last year. Dicklyon (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per SMcCandlish, Sandstein, David Eppstein, Tony1, et al. I see the target being calmly responsive to criticism, in the face of comments like "I don't give a damn what you think" from a 10-year editor. Such invective is never appropriate, I have seen it before from that side of this longstanding dispute, and it tells me a lot about the situation without spending days studying its history. I have enough exposure to Dicklyon's editing to know that he cares at least as much about process as many of his attackers here. Has the appearance of an ideological witch hunt.
  Look, it is not Dicklyon's fault that the community has failed to reach a clear consensus on the underlying issue; i.e., the role of MoS at en-wiki. He is doing what he feels is right in the absence of clear and unambiguous guidance, and we should not be scapegoating him for our own failure. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose – Dicklyon is not a disruptive editor and cares deeply about the integrity of the encyclopedia. AN/I is the wrong venue for this MOS debate. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Not a disruptive editor? I'll just leave this here. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for linking that discussion. I'm still hoping to hear someone explain what those editors are smoking; no implication that's it's illegal, but certainly seems mind-bending. Dicklyon (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The simple fact is, that was your response when it was pointed out to you that something was a proper noun, and should therefore not be arbitrarily given lower case letters. It's an uncivil response because you're not willing to accept that you may be wrong. If you're not willing to defer to the opinions of people from a relevant Wikiproject, and instead you're slavishly (and in this case incorrectly) following the guidelines in the Manual of Style, then it calls into question that long list of page moves. Is anyone going to volunteer to check through every single one and make sure that a lack of core knowledge hasn't pushed through moves that have over-ridden the opinions of people who are better versed in the subject matter? Exemplo347 (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The point of my jest was that the linked web page there did not support the opinion that it was cited in support of. Opinions are fine, as far as they go, and I'm sure most of us have some; but decisions based on consideration of evidence are more useful in such discussions, which is why I was poking fun there. If I'm wrong, please do show me. Anyway, this RM discussion is pretty far off topic here. Dicklyon (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Seemed good-natured ribbing to me, and the point Dicklyon raised was correct. The "source" chosen does not in any way indicate that the phrase is a proper name.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Question: What percentage of Dicklyon's page moves turn out to be overturned? As far as I can tell only a very small percentage. If so then preventing him from doing moves would be a significant loss for the encyclopedia. Paul August ☎ 18:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. I estimate about 1% usually, but there have been a few clusters that might push that up a bit, such as the group of 7 Japanese railway lines that I downcased on 10 Dec. that all got reverted; leaving that alone until I get around to discussion. And the sneak-attack at Talk:2016 NFL Draft#Requested move 30 April 2016, a single-page RM at a new article, watched by very few and probably only be NFL fans, which was interpreted as overturning all the XXXX NFL draft article titles that had been stable since I had downcased them in 2014 (see why I did: [1], [2]). So maybe 2 or 3%. Or maybe I'm in denial and someone can show that it's higher than that. Dicklyon (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

That percentage would need to be compared with the percentage for the average editor (or the average editor with x+ edits/page moves maybe). It could just be that a large number were left alone because none cares. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the average editor has anything to do with it. We simply want to know whether his moves are a net plus, or a net minus, for the project. And that no one "cares" about a move would seem to constitute reasonable prima facie evidence that it was OK. Paul August ☎ 19:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, per SMcCandlish, Sandstein, Arthur Rubin, Tony1, et al. I've had limited interaction with Dick, but I've no doubt whatsoever that he is here to improve the encyclopedia, and is a net-positive to the project. This is draconian. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It's worse than draconian, which would be something like a lone "I am the law!" admin taking terribly harsh action against Lyon and anyone who agrees with him. What we have here is more like a cluster of villagers with torches and pitchforks trying to chase someone out of town and into the swamp because he talks different from them. (Fortunately, people along the road are objecting and stopping the mob.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Yeah, my "witch hunt" was the wrong metaphor; the word I was looking for is "lynching". And that's about as counter to Wikipedia's core principles as one can get. Thankfully, it's looking like the mob has lost this one, so the principles still have some life in them. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Why am I getting the impression that it's me vs Dicklyon here? I wasn't the only one who complained about his moving of articles over a period of several months. There were plenty of others. I think this discussion has now run for long enough, so it should be closed by an uninvolved admin. As I said elsewhere in this discussion, I did consider indeffing Dicklyon; but I thought it would be be better for all concerned to raise the issue here. Whatever happens now, I wish Dicklyon the best for the future and hope that he will continue to edit. Mjroots (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
        • I don't know why you're getting that impression, especially immediately following mention of villagers, mob, lynching, etc. If Dicklyon or any of his so-called cohorts repeatedly fails to observe Wikipedia process, let us know. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose I have read this whole page, including the below discussions. I am convinced that banning Dicklyon would be a miscarriage, and any sanction would be inappropriate. First, there is no evidence that Dicklyon has been disruptive either in the short term or the long term. In fact, the preponderance of evidence points to Dicklyon editing in accordance with guidelines and polices.

Second, it seems the complainant is overreacting by bringing this issue to ANI and by having considered a more draconian alternative (please see below) - and that the alternative was in any way reasonable. In light of this, I recommend this person take a wiki break due to WP:INVOLVED.

Third, assuming good faith, there is a small cluster of editors who are relying on sources that are specialist or ambiguous and therefore not sufficient for determining the correct letter case for the title and when it is used in the body of the article. It is clear from the discussions on this page, and the discussions that have been linked to, WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS and WP:SSM, along with related guidelines, are the appropriate references for article title conventions on Wikipedia.

Articles are supposed to be consistent across Wikipedia, and not edited according to a mish mash of rules by various groups of people across Wikipedia. This is because we are striving to become a premier or the premier reference work as an encyclopedia - so that is why we follow these conventions (please see: WP:NCCAPS). Dicklyon edits in agreement with these principles and guidelines - so we shouldn't even be here, at this ANI.---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support per Black Kite, Keri, Lugnuts, Railfan, Exemplo347, Only in death, and Starblind. He was unblocked a year ago on the condition that he make no controversial page moves [3], and these moves are controversial and have been objected to. And they are extensive: [4] Adding hypens and en-dashes makes searching more difficult; people have objected more than once but he doesn't seem to be getting the message. WP:RM#CM says "[A] move is potentially controversial if ... [s]omeone could reasonably disagree with the move." He also aggressively pursued Nyttend across multiple forums about his close of the RM for Steamboat Bill, Jr.: [5], [6], [7]. It's time to just put this disruption to rest. Softlavender (talk) 10:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I already discuss below how I reacted to the few moves that were challenged; if you think there are others where my reaction was inappropriate, can you point them out? And on the use of dashes between person names, are you saying that's controversial now? I thought that was settled in 2011. None of these have been challenged, which is why I was working on that while waiting for this railroad challenge to resolve. Dicklyon (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The links provided by Softlavander do not demonstrate that Dicklyon "agressively pursued User:Nyttend across multiple forums" for that RM close or any other. A number of editors were involved in these discussions and Dicklyon happened to be only one of them. Nyttend seemed to lose sight of proper use of Admin tools and status and this needed to be discussed. Softlavender's claim has no basis in fact. There is nothing to indicate Soflavender's view of this matter is accurate.

Also, linking to Dicklyon's entire move log history appears to be an attempt to say all his page moves have been controversial. This is not the case. As has already been discussed, perhaps 1% to 3% have been challenged or reverted and discussion ensued if it was necessary. The only exception, as Dicklyon pointed out, are the Japanese Railway issues because the reverts in this project occurred recently, and he hasn't gotten around to it yet. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Here are the conditions of his unblock a year ago [8], and here are his thousands of unilateral page moves since his unblock [9]. The objections to his moves since his unblock are mentioned and alluded to in this thread and are the very reason the thread was opened (there are obviously many, they just don't all happen to be listed here because that's not necessary nor is everyone watching ANI), and contesting one type of move is an implicit objection to the whole family of that type of moves, so the individual "percent objected to" is a misleading statistic. He has obviously violated the conditions of his unblock, so he needs to go through RM for any further moves. That's not a burden, since RM moves can be grouped into families of the same type. Softlavender (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I continue to maintain that my moves are not controversial, based on the fact that so few of them are challenged, and those few that are challenged I either quickly made right or found a consensus in favor. If you want to point out counter-examples, please do. Otherwise, all you're accusing me of is doing a lot of work, which I have already stipulated to. Dicklyon (talk) 06:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Partial oppose and partial neutral. I personally believe that the project would be better off if the ban were imposed, largely for the reasons given here by individuals such as Softlavender and Calton, but because of recent disputes I don't want that wish to be considered for consensus. I'm therefore neutral on the proposal for the most part. Given the fact that all dispute over Dicklyon's pagemove activities appear to me to be mainspace-related, and given people's propensity to wikilawyer in general, I don't think it would be fair to impose the ban as written. If you ban him, ban him from moving pages in mainspace and Talk:space, whether they're moved within the same namespace, from one of those namespaces, or to one of those namespaces. Don't restrict him from moving pages that neither start nor end in those namespaces: as far as I know, we currently have no reason to restrict his ability to move drafts, project pages, userspace pages, etc. If the ban were limited to main and talk, I would be entirely neutral. Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Very cute; translation: "I probably shouldn't say anything because of my recent anti-MOS rants, but I agree with Softlavender, who hasn't made it clear what her complaint is other than bugging an admin for his involved close, and with Calton, who has made no complaint at all". Not much I can say to that... As for the rest of your idea, I think everyone will know that it's a distinction without a difference. Dicklyon (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support per Calton. When you're so aggressive that you display hostility toward the neutral, when you've demonstrated that you won't brook opposition on this kind of question, and when you characterise disagreement as opposition to project standards instead of considering that there might be room for disagreement, the encyclopedia will benefit if you are prohibited from moving pages. I still maintain that we shouldn't restrict his ability to move pages other than mainspace or talkspace. Nyttend (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't you call Calton here to voice his complaint if you're going to reference it? Dicklyon (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

And you can't really make "I personally believe that the project would be better off if the ban were imposed" neutral, no matter what word you put in front of it. Dicklyon (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• So that we can get more of a consensus of opinions based on the December 2015 unblock request, I'm going to ping all of the various participants in, and the closer of, that unblock request, who have not already commented here: [10]: Prodego, Mike V, Reaper Eternal, DoRD, Beyond My Ken, BusterD, Johnuniq, DGG, Graeme Bartlett, Jenks24, Xaosflux, Thryduulf, Begoon, NinjaRobotPirate, Brustopher, Worm That Turned, Ivanvector, BD2412, Salvidrim!, Epicgenius, Antidiskriminator, Jonathunder. The wording of the close was "User unblocked (with provision to avoid large scale, controversial actions) per consensus here." Softlavender (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• In response to the ping, I looked at this mess a while ago and decided that getting involved would be a mistake. Supporting the page moves would support the kind of activity that is very destructive in a collaborative community, while not supporting them would suggest that Wikipedia should not have extended battles over important issues such as hyphens and title case. My ideal would involve someone working out how peace and quiet could be achieved by indeffing the fewest number of good editors. Johnuniq (talk) 10:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• (responding to ping) Support ban from page moves because it is clear from the evidence presented here and in the linked discussions that (a) Dicklyon is interested in making everything conform to his opinion of what the manual of style suggests should be be the case rather than understanding (or apparently attempting to understand) the topic at hand or why people are objecting to the moves (objections may or may not be correct, but they must be addressed not dismissed without thought); and (b) they have breached the conditions of their unblock (for the record, I consider an average of more 1 or 2 requested moves per day over a month or to be engaging in mass moves because page moves are your focus, not the content of the articles being moved). If I thought myself an uninvolved administrator I would impose this ban as a discretionary sanction under WP:ARBATC. The principles of that arbitration case are also worth repeating here, as some seem to have forgotten them, "The English Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MoS) is a guideline, or a set of "best practices" supported by consensus. The MoS is not a collection of hard rules.", "Behavior that violates Wikipedia's policies, even if driven by good intentions, is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive." (that this thread exists is reason enough to show that Dicklyon's behaviour is disruptive, that others are trying to characterise it as an interpersonal dispute actually supports this) and the first rememdy "[Editors] are reminded to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the Manual of Style [and] the article titles policy ('WP:TITLE')…". Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• (responding to ping) Support ban from page moves. Clearly, the expectations when unblocked have not been met. Jonathunder (talk) 14:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• NOTE: I don't think a lot of the Opposers have properly read the proposal. It reads: "Dicklyon is permanently banned from moving any page. He may request page moves through WP:RM, allowing for discussion and consensus to be reached." There is nothing draconian about this proposal, especially since it falls perfectly in line with the conditions of his unblock a year ago: [11]. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose all sanctions (responding to ping) per Sandstein and SMcCandlish, and everyone else who has already cited their analyses as reason to oppose this proposal. I have not followed Dicklyon at all since the unblock request over a year ago, except for seeing him at a move review quite recently on a topic not related to this. I recall suggesting that he be banned from bold (undiscussed) page moves for six months; I'm unsure if that was formally imposed but he seems to have abided by it anyway. The discussions linked by the proposer appear to be examples of Dicklyon constructively commenting in a requested move discussion whether he initiated the discussion or not. If some of those discussions result from examples of Dicklyon boldly moving a page, it appears to have been done in response to consensus reached in a clearly related discussion, and at any rate he was not banned from doing so at the time. If consensus is reached for the proper way to treat a particular situation on one article, it's needlessly disruptive to expect to hold a separate 7-day discussion for every other article where that exact situation also arises. Or to put it a slightly different way, each individual rail article is not an opportunity to rehash the same tired old MOS debates. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose all sanctions (responding to ping) per Sandstein. I also agree with SMCC "ANI is not the venue for settling content disputes, and this is entirely a content dispute." --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Antidiskriminator: This is not entirely a content dispute. Please read the evidence presented by several people here about ignoring of past consensuses, refusal to engage in meaningful discussion, and acting contrary to the conditions imposed when he was unblocked. You can disagree that these are problematic and/or that they rise to the level of sanctions if you wish to, but pretending they don't exist is not an acceptable way forwards. Thryduulf (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thryduulf, I think we should very much ignore your accusations of "ignoring of past consensuses" and "refusal to engage in meaningful discussion", since these are brand new allegations, not previously mentioned here by anyone. If you want to taken seriously, please withdraw or correct your comments, or provide links to what you're talking about, or say what accusation in this thread you meant to refer to. This is not a forum for you to just make up shit about me. Dicklyon (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Several other editors directly refuted your position and "evidence presented by several people here", with comments such as::

• "The discussions linked by the proposer appear to be examples of Dicklyon constructively commenting in a requested move discussion whether he initiated the discussion or not."
• "Look, it is not Dicklyon's fault that the community has failed to reach a clear consensus on the underlying issue; i.e., the role of MoS at en-wiki. He is doing what he feels is right in the absence of clear and unambiguous guidance, and we should not be scapegoating him for our own failure."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

It is definitely just a content dispute. The obvious proof of this is that Dicklyon moves a lot of articles (generally a category at a time, a sane cleanup strategy) and gets no "controversy" about it except from a couple of WP:FACTIONs on handful of extremely narrow topics, and they oppose again and again and again tendentiously no matter how much RM precedent goes against them, until there are no articles left for them to argue about because the job is done. Virtually without exception, they're trying to impose an off-WP style from specialized sources onto a general-audience encyclopedia, and trying to rope off "their" topics from the applicability of site-wide style and naming-convention guidelines and the article titles policy (which, no, is not "just a guideline"). If there were a legitimate behavioral/process problem with Dicklyon, the animosity toward his moves would be much more common and widely distributed across numerous of topics, not coming solely from a few that are world-renowned for attracting excessive fan-geekery (e.g., guns and railways). This "specialized-style fallacy is characterized by the view that "normal rules of English don't apply to us, because our topic is magically special and has its own rules that everyone must follow even when writing in a completely different kind of publication from ours". The last time such an insular group of editors tried to push their special pleading in a community-wide and lengthy RfC, the community answered 40 to 15 against, all policy rationales against, the general-audience reliable sources against, even some specialist sources against, and almost all the supporters were from the same wikiproject.

When it comes to down-with-WP-guidelines advocacy, most of the exceptions to the specialized-style fallacy pattern are motivated instead by misguided and ill-informed nationalism (cf. MOS:LQ and MOS:JR disruption), which is arguably worse but identical in the "consensus keeps going against me, but I will never give up" behavior.

How many times do we have to deal with this, with the same consensus outcome, before such "I'm going to make it my mission on WP to try to ream big holes into the guidelines that don't suit my off-WP preferences" behavior is curtailed? Our guidelines exist as a set of game rules so the game can be played instead of everyone standing on the field arguing about how to play. Many of them are arbitrary, no one likes every single one of them, and none of them are liked by everyone, but everyone does agree to play by them or they need to get off the field. The actual disruption is that caused by tendentious resistance to compliance with WP's rules, on the basis of very narrow camps of off-WP expectations, be they specialist or nationalist. WP is not written specifically for American gun collectors, Australian ornithologists, British trainspotters, or Canadian cat breeders; the way that members of such affinity groups write amongst themselves is confusing and unhelpful to WP's readership at large. WP is an encyclopedia; it is not a special-interest blogging platform.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Responding to ping - Well, it took a while to read through this and the December 2015 unblock request, but on the totality of the information I've just read, I must support the proposal. If Dicklyon is correct that his changes truly represent community consensus, and are not simply a case of blindly following MOS (almost always a bad thing), then it would seem to be no big deal to require him to use the RM process to make the changes in capitalization he deems appropriate. My opinion is unfettered by any knowledge of, or preference for, whether "line" or "Line" is best, although I would imagine that it would depend on what the railway itself used. In any even, those discussions can take place at RM. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

BMK, it would be much more disruptive to run all non-controversial moves through RM discussions. I'm perfectly happy to use that process on any single or multiple moves that are controversial; controversy is easily signalled by a revert, but very few of my moves are ever reverted, which seems to suggest that they are not controversial. As I and many other here have pointed out, they generally follow clear consensus, which would make multiple new RM discussions the disruptive way to go. Even in this discussion, nobody has been able to point out which moves they would consider to be controversial, other than the few I discuss below, which I believe were dealt with correctly to and to most people's satisfaction. So I remain unclear on what problem you are thinking you are addressing by asking me not do page moves. Dicklyon (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I am unconvinced by your argument that being required to use normal processes can be "disruptive". At worst, you might have to wait for a consensus decision instead of getting the instant gratification of doing it yourself. That's not "disruption", although it may be an annoyance for you, but considering the commentary here, it seems as if it would serve the benefit of the community at large. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

BMK, I do use normal processes, always, and have no objection to doing so. The reason an RM discussion is not the normal process for uncontroversial moves is that it involves time and work from a significant number of editors; doing this for routine uncontroversial moves would therefore be "disruptive" in that it would pollute the already-big RM workload with lots of extra noise. Instead, let's continue to use RMs for ones that are challenged, or reasonably look like they would be challenged (and very few of mind end up in this category; nobody has even attempted to show a bunch for which RM would have been more appropriate). Dicklyon (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I still don't think that's what "disruption" is generally taken to mean, but in any case, you can minimize any problems by ganging together requests that all have a similar rationale, instead of filing a separate one for each article, can you not? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, the multi-RM is less disruptive than a bunch of individual ones. That's why I did one at Talk:Chester–Manchester_line#Requested_move_2_November_2016. After the closer noted that "Furthermore, there appears to be a consensus to avoid capitalizing the word 'line'," was I to then do another one just like it? Or move on? Dicklyon (talk) 04:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

If the others were not of the form "Place A to Place B line", then yes, you were, since the closer was only referring to articles of that format. "Place A to Place B line" is a description, whereas "Name Line" could be either a description or a proper noun, depending on circumstances. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

BMK, thanks, that's as much as anyone has been able to say about which of my edits might be considered controversial. And it agrees with the ones discussed already that were challenged (Bittern Line and Wherry Lines that I reverted, Wirral line that the querrier decided to agree with me on, and the Woodhead line and Huddersfield line there were reverted and then later downcased by RM consensus); we also discussed Xxx Valley line a bit, and I think Xxx branch line was pretty well agreed to be descriptive. Beyond all these, I still had perhaps 10 or 20 moves of British named lines that I did in recent months, none of which were challenged. I don't think this is "mass" quantities, and it would have been a lot more productive for someone to challenge them if they had an issue than to bring me to AN/I as Mjroots did while he had open his odd proposal to capitalize Line everywhere. Thanks for your input, and do let me know if you see any that you'd like to take to RM. Dicklyon (talk) 06:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with you there. There are numerous ways to "challenge" your moves. One is to revert them one-by-one, opening separate discussion on multiple talk pages, which is pretyy inefficient and can lead to contradictory result, and another is to bring them to a noticeboard for collective consideration as a whole. I don't think you can blow off the changes that weren't reverted on that basis, since here they are, after all, being challenged. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

You're not saying that AN/I is an appropriate place to challenge moves, are you? If any of my moves are to be challenged, I would think doing so somewhere else would be appropriate, as was done with the few I mentioned; others related were discussed implicitly in Mjroots' proposal to upcase all lines – a proposal that got zero support, and did not lead to more downcasings being challenged than the handful that have been discussed; and that was months ago. So why is he bringing it here now? And why are you piling on? I still can't get anyone to say what the actual complaint is, other than that I work too much, and I can get that at home. Dicklyon (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

AN/I is a perfectly reasonable way to challenge multiple moves made withing a short period of time, yes, because questions of behavior come into play. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, challenge away then; which moves of mine do you find controversial, in what time period? Nobody else is willing to answer that oft-repeated question. Dicklyon (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Stonewalling at other noticeboards is pretty easy but at ANI people are welcome to look at the overall picture and decide whether it would be desirable for the ongoing disruption to continue unchecked, or whether participants should be requested to back off. Who cares if all your page moves are golden, the point is they are causing disruption. It appears the page moves are to "fix" dashes and letter case in titles, and the question to be resolved at ANI concerns whether the fixes warrant the ensuing disruption. My humble opinion is that they do not. Johnuniq (talk) 05:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

So your contention is that my edits may be all OK individually, yet disruptive in the aggregate? Gee, thanks, for your appreciation of my hard work. And please note that there have been exactly zero complaints involving a dash, so if you are introducing such a complaint, please be more explicit, lest someone get the wrong impression that any of my dash fixes have been controversial or challenged. I have discussed already the very few caps changes that were disputed, so if you see a way that any of that was disruptive, please say so. Dicklyon (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Objection to canvassing: Softlavender's mass invite of almost entirely people with an old bone to pick against Dicklyon was inappropriate. The previous discussion from which opponents have been harvested was't even related to the current matter but was about mass and controversial moves. The current discussion is about non-mass moves, use of normal RM process, and moves that are to comply with guidelines and thus are not controversial ("I don't like the guideline and won't stop fighting against compliance with it" isn't what "controversy" means in this context; "tendentious editing" is a better description). It is completely unreasonable for Dicklyon to have been instructed in the previous ANI to stop doing mass, controversial moves, yet now to be pilloried (by a mega-tagteam) for actually complying with that and sharply limiting his move-related activity. This ANI should just be closed as "no actoin", and should have been already many days ago.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, 15 out of 18 commenters supported Dicklyon's unblock [12], so it's not true that any of these had any bones to pick with him; the 3 opposes were based on the socking, not on personal disputes. Plus "large scale" does not mean "automated" or "semi-automated". Since his unblock 13 months ago, Dicklyon has done virtually nothing but page moves. -- often about a hundred a day, thousands per month, and tens thousands of page moves in those 13 months. Softlavender (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC); edited 05:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Exaggeration serves no useful purpose. My move log shows fewer than 100 moves since this began 9 days ago; 1000 takes us back to June. Please review my recent moves and see if there are any that you think should have been treated as potentially controversial, besides the few railway line caps of last quarter that Mjroots came here about. Why fan the flame of his content dispute into this much drama, even without any specific complaint, and fuel it with exaggerations that are essentially just lies? Dicklyon (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

My count was via scrolling through your edit history (and Control+F'ing the word "move") since your unblock in December 2015. I didn't check your move log (did not recall how to do that or that move logs existed), and I see now that my count was inflated by the repetition created by Talk pages and the newly created pages resultant from the moves. The correct count (subtracting the concomitant talk pages), from the move log [13], is 2,500 moves in the 13 months since your unblock. I will amend my post. It is true that you have done very little except move pages since your unblock. Softlavender (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for counting; that 2500 is a bit below my self-reported estimate of nearly 3000. And it is certainly not true that I've done very little else, not that it matters here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

And I take it from your response that you haven't yet found any that you would consider controversial. Please do keep looking. Dicklyon (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

You have done very little else, as anyone can see via your contribution history (and using Control+F move if desired): [14]. And by the way, I'm not going to edit war over your insistence on misplacing your response to me in the incorrect chronology, but please be aware that WP:TPO allows other editors to correct the layout of discussions, and that new replies to existing posts which have already been replied to should be below the first reply, not on top of it, to preserve the correct chronology. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

So you're not going to move it a fourth time? Did you notice that WP:TPO also says "normally you should stop if there is any objection"? Dicklyon (talk) 05:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm still asking whether you saw anything in there that you'd characterize as controversial. I guess not. Dicklyon (talk) 05:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

You are misquoting WP:TPO; what you quoted was regarding actually editing or removing comments, not merely correcting layout. Softlavender (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, got it. I'll take that as you giving up on trying to find any of my edits that you would consider "controversial". Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I would have to agree that "large scale" does not necessarily mean "doing everything at the same time", but can reasonably mean "making a large number of changes within a relatively short period of time." Certainly, Dicklyon's actions seem to violate the spirit and purpose of the unblock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, please don't be silly. You've been here long enough to know that as long as all the editors who commented on a previous discussion are notified, regardless of their comment at the time, it is not considered WP:canvassing to get more input on a discussion by notifying all previous participants. I haven't actually counted (and don't intend to) but my impression is that the people who said they came here in response to Softlavender's pings are about equally divided between pros and cons. So, really, maybe you'd like to strike your comment? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I would not. It's extremely irregular to go dig up previous but only tangentially related disciplinary discussions and try to get everyone from them to come squabble at the new one. There's nothing constructive about it; it's just WP:DRAMA-mongering. If we did this normally at ANI, almost every discussion on this page would be a morass of mass-pings, and people with grudges they've been suddenly and pointlessly reminded of piling on with off-topic commentary about what happened in a previous ANI/AE/RFARB/whatever instead of the facts of the current one. Don't pick scabs, don't kick sleeping dogs, don't manufacture additional dispute in a venue meant for resolving it. The point of WP:CANVASS is to not draw lopsided-attention to a discussion; notifying "everyone" when the majority of the ping recipients were opponents last time is not neutral. The fact that it hasn't turned into a dog-pile just demonstrates that the present request has no merit.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to point this out, but you're entirely wrong about this: notifying all editors involved in a previous discussion is quite regular, and happens all the time. WP:CANVASS even mentions it specifically as an appropriate notification:

Examples include: ... Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) ... The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. Do not send notices to too many users, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive thm.

Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion.

Softlavender's pings met all these requirements. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose all sanctions per Sandstein and SMcCandlish, and everyone else who has already cited their analyses as reason to oppose this proposal. This is pretty much TLDNR but In have tried. I observe the tone of the arguments posed to be diametrically opposed - reasoned, logical, a-personal and objective and, in the support of the ban, the converse (all-be-it a broad-brush observation). Controversial is perhaps not well defined. Just because something is opposed, does not, ipso facto make it controversial.Cinderella157 (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

No, but it does make it disputed, and as far as WIkipedia is concerened that is the same thing. "Controversial" really only comes into play on BLPs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem considering the opposed or disputed ones as controversial; but there are very few of those, and they've been appropriately responded to. It's the claim of "mass controversial" actions that has no backup. Dicklyon (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. Wikipedia has never had any kind of human-resources management, and as a result we don't use our human capital well at all. We're volunteers, so we do what we think we want to do. In fact, certain activities can be highly addictive. A talented editor such as Dicklyon should not be spending his time fighting over capitals, commas and dashes, certainly not to the point where he's repeatedly blocked and threatened with topic bans. Something has gone wrong when that happens. Dick, it's making people unhappy, and I can't imagine that you're enjoying it much either. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your perspective. Dicklyon (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• As long as there is no edit warring, Dicklyon has the right to be bold, others have the right to revert him and then both have an obligation to discuss (via WP:RM, perhaps). So far as I can tell, there is no evidence that Dicklyon is not following this basic Wikipedian process. Srnec (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Response from Dicklyon

Quite a Saturday morning surprise here, after a long spell of routine work with relatively little pushback from editors of the affected pages. Yes, I move a lot of pages, largely for style and punctuation reasons. In the last 12 months I've probably moved nearly 3000 pages, that is, an average of nearly 10 per day, with bursts as high as 30 moves on a busy day. None of this is done "in mass" using tools; it's almost always done carefully, checking sources and history, though there have been exceptions where I made mistakes due to insufficient care.

The current complaint seems to be all about the railroads, where there was a cluster of British line articles where caps were widely applied to generic words, and compound "narrow gauge" when used as a modifier was lacking the hyphen that would help a reader parse it. I usually follow WP:BRD, doing a bold move, and discussing it if it gets reverted. But very few have been reverted.

Mistakes

Yes, I've made a few mistakes, like moving again after not noticing a revert in two cases that I'm aware of.

• Take a look at Talk:Woodhead line#Requested move 17 December 2016, where I confessed to that mistake and opened a discussion. The move passed, and generally reaffirmed the idea that "line" should be lowercase except in cases where sources support interpretation as a proper name, such as Midland Main Line and East Coast Main Line.
• On Bittern Line and Wherry Lines, I immediately apologized, self-reverted, and cleaned up all incoming links when Mjroots reverted one and gave good evidence that these are treated as proper names. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Foo Line or Foo line?
• In a couple of cases I got interrupted or forgot what I was doing, and didn't finish checking replacements via search-and-replace, and left some very wrong styling in the middle of book titles that I didn't intend to touch, as Andy Dingley pointed out on my talk page. I apologized of course, and make no excuse for such occasional lapses of care, but it's not the usual thing or worth a complaint at AN/I.

Downcasing line

I started a big multi-RM back in November on this: Talk:Chester–Manchester line#Requested move 2 November 2016. Closer Bradv concluded that "there appears to be a consensus to avoid capitalizing the word 'line'. This consensus matches the original proposal, so we can move them all as proposed." This was after a no-consensus close at Talk:Settle–Carlisle line that approved the en dash between place names but left the line case undecided. In all cases, my opinions, and subsequent moves, were aligned with the consensus, and with the guidelines of our MOS.

Reviewing my notifications for reverts, I found one more move reverted in the last month, at Wirral line. The reverter notified me, we had a quick discussion, he withdrew his objection, and I moved it again. That's successful WP:BRD in action. Then Redrose64 move protected it for move warring, which seems kind of silly after a peace treaty where everyone is happy.

Walking a fine Line

In the November discussion that Mjroots links at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_37#Recent_article_moves_removing_capitalisation_of_.27line.27, my "opponents" express opposing views: Rcsprinter123 says "we can't be looking at this on a case-by-case basis...", while Andy Dingley says "These need to be discussed and decided on a case by case basis." I'm generally somewhere in between. As Andy says, each one needs to researched and decided; but in the past it was done Rcsprinter123's or Mjroots's way, in which they were all made arbitrarily "consistent" by capitalizing. For most, sources don't support caps, so those are the ones I was moving. In almost all cases, the move I did was either not reverted or sustained after discussion, so I think that indicates that I've mostly researched things correctly. Where I haven't, I'm happy to be shown, and fix it. And any one that Andy thinks needs to be discussed, he can revert (but probably not in bulk as Nathan A RF and Rcsprinter123 did, which got them slapped around a bit there). Dicklyon (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Narrow gauge

One editor, Railfan23, told me that it's British to not bother with the hyphen when using "narrow gauge" as a modifier, as in Narrow-gauge railway. He didn't revert me. I showed him that he was wrong, that in books, the hyphen there is about equally more common in British English as in American English. Other editors supported that, both on my talk page and in an RM about something in which I said that if we going to move it, or not, we should fix the hyphen to help the reader parse it. Given the obvious support in sources and among editors, I went ahead and did a bunch of these, with almost no pushback. Another editor, Bermicourt, came later to my talk page with the same Br/Am theory, and I pointed him at the other discussion, and he agreed to disagree, ignoring the evidence.

A huge number of my edits (as opposed to moves) in this space were in articles that obviously never had the attention of anyone who understands typography or style, wikipedia's or otherwise. Tons of spaced hyphens needed to be fixed to unspaced or spaced dashes, or unspaced hyphens, depending on context. This took a lot of work. Similarly, the titles had been made by the same editors and never really looked at for style or otherwise in so many cases. I'll willing to be reverted and discuss when someone disagrees, but there were very few reverts or talk items in this area, and the ones there were were based on the made-up theory of Br/Am differences in hyphenation.

By the way, I'd love some feedback on 2 ft gauge railways in South Africa; my move to Two-foot-gauge railways in South Africa might not be ideal. I have generally avoided hyphenating a dimension with units onto "gauge", but starting the article title with a number seemed like a bad idea, too. There are more like this to be decided, so this would be a good place to start with constructive feedback. Maybe South African railways of 2 ft. gauge or South African railways of two-foot gauge? On the other hand, Two-foot gauge railways in South Africa would appear to be perfectly conventional, too, though the half-hyphenated form strikes me as wrong and unhelpful. Any style guides address such questions?

British narrow gauge slate railways

See Talk:British narrow gauge slate railways#Requested move 30 December 2016 where we talked about the hyphen extensively. The non-admin closer Bradv said "The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus to keep this where it is, as some of the railways listed are elsewhere in Britain, and it is felt that there isn't enough content to write separate similar articles for Cornwall, Scotland, and England. (non-admin closure)." This comment about British vs Welsh had no relationship to the other part of the discussion, which was not part of the proposal, to hyphen "narrow-gauge" in that context. Given the apparent consensus to do so, and given the closer's lack of any comment on that question (not to mention that this non-admin doesn't know the difference between no consensus and "consensus to keep this where it is"), I went ahead and did the less controversial hyphen move. This pissed him off and he reverted it, which is fine, then he came to my user page to threaten me about it, and now he's here. Was this reverted bold move really an actionable offense, or suitable for a non-admin to be threatening to have me blocked? Seems to me re-opening a more focused RM discussion there would be the right path now.

Dashing through the snow

Softlavender has added a complaint above: "Adding hypens and en-dashes makes searching more difficult; people have objected more than once but he doesn't seem to be getting the message." I don't know where this is coming from, and she won't say. I have received no objections to any of the hundred of dash fixes that I've done, that I can recall. They are uncontroversial. Or is she backing up Railfran23 on his problem with Narrow-gauge railway and such? Hard to tell; her answer just re-asserts that objections "are mentioned and alluded to in this thread and are the very reason the thread was opened". Hard to defend against this kind of guilt-by-assertion junk. Dicklyon (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent RM discussions I opened

I've opened a number of move discussions when things got controversial. Please review recent ones and see that I'm generally trying to follow WP:BRD, and acting quite sensibly.

• Talk:Huddersfield Line#Requested move 6 January 2017 – currently open; classic case of specialists wanting over-capitalization; so we talk. Closed in favor of downcasing as I had done before.
• Talk:Volcanic Explosivity Index#Requested move 4 January 2017 – currently open; similar deal. But this was discussing fixing an undiscussed move in 2016 of my case fix from 2014.
• Talk:Woodhead line#Requested move 17 December 2016 – closed in favor of my proposal to use lowercase, after I had been reverted.

Few of my British line moves got reverted, and the discussions (e.g. at Woodhead line) reaffirmed that we follow WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS; so I kept at it. On 10 Dec. I also started moving Japanese lines when I noticed a similar cluster of over-capitalization there, but those 7 all got reverted, so I immediately stopped and left it alone; will start discussions there at some point, since sources support lowercase.

The complainer

Mjroots is the author of the ridiculous proposal at this edit to ignore one of our most longstanding guidelines about title capitalization, so should not be taken too seriously; he wrote there:

Proposals

1. That all railway line articles are housed at the title that has "... Line" in capital letters (Foo Line, Foo Branch Line, Foo Main Line etc).
2. That all such articles are moved protected at Admin level.

Mjroots has since withdrawn the proposal; nobody supported his call to cap all lines or to call for admin move protection. Dicklyon (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Carry on

Six days into this mudfest, I'm focusing on uncontroversial dash and comma fixes (avoiding railroads, hyphens, and caps while this is open); moved about 46 articles today, plus 3 technical requests, and editted perhaps 100. I hope that everyone can see that this level of "mass" moves is just a lot of work. And if anyone thinks that any part of it is controversial, I hope they'll just say so. So far, no objections to such moves (since the WP:JR thing settled about a year ago, and MOS:DASH way before then). Dicklyon (talk) 06:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

And after all this pile-on, including the new bunch that Softlavender invited "So that we can get more of a consensus of opinions", still nobody has provided anything like a list of moves that they think were controversial. Still nothing but the few I discuss in this section, and perhaps a few more older ones; a 1% effect. If nobody can even point to what the complaint is about, why is it still open? Dicklyon (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Several great editors have been indeffed because they irritated other good editors too much and too often, with no commensurate benefit to the encyclopedia (I'm thinking of people who, among other things, did thousands of automated edits to impose their preferred wikitext style). I have not looked at the core issue in this report recently, but I recognize some of the names above and the mere fact that they are pissed off should be enough for a collaborative contributor to back off and let time pass, then use another method rather than trying to impose their strict reading of whatever guideline is being relied on as justification. Johnuniq (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:RM is the prescribed method for potentially controversial page moves, though, and Dicklyon is following it. Are you alleging bad faith in his interpretation? If so, you'd better have strong evidence. Getting titles consistently using English correctly (per our own style guide and the major off-WP ones it is based on) with regard to capitalization, hyphenation, etc., is objectively a benefit to the encyclopedia. Your post seems to amount to "People have been indeffed for doing useless and destructive things in a disruptive, thousands-of-automated edits manner, so be warned! You, too, will be indeffed – for doing useful, non-destructive, non-disruptive things, slowly and manually, and following both WP's behavior and style rules, plus using process correctly – just because me and my handful of friends are not getting our way and want to have a tantrum about it, rather than go to WT:MOS or WT:AT and see if consensus will change like we're supposed to." Does not compute.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, S, John is not among those whining that I should be sanctioned for my work. But I agree his warning is a strange one. Dicklyon (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

---

Respond below; please don't insert comments inside my comments. Dicklyon (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

My proposal is ridiculous? Maybe it is in Dicklyon's eyes. It it doesn't gain acceptance then I won't dwell on it. What I am trying to do it prevent further instances of arguing over page moves, both with that proposal and the one up for discussion here. Regulars here at ANI will appreciate that it is rare occurrence when I start a thread here. I try not to let it get so bad that such action is necessary. The impression I get from Dicklyon is that he is firmly in the WP:IDHT camp. So here we are with the page move ban under discussion. Mjroots (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I do hear loud and clear that you do not like me changing "Line" to "line" in any article titles, and that you'd prefer all such to be capitalized in titles, whether proper name or not. I just think that proposal, being contrary to WP:NCCAPS, is way off base. And when it got no traction in discussion, you surprised me with an AN/I complaint, which seems equally extreme. As for arguing over page moves, that's what we do routinely at WP:RM; we can do more of it or less of it, but cutting it off by ignoring longstanding titling policy and guidelines seems like a non-starter, doesn't it? Dicklyon (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the Mjroots proposal is nonsensical. The first part ("my topic is magically special and so must be immune to WP's style guidelines") is why we have WP:CONLEVEL policy, otherwise every wikiproject and other clump of editors would declare their pet topics exempt from every guideline and policy. The second part is why m:The Wrong Version was one of the community's first essays; it wisely mocks the idea that administrative power should be used to lock articles in some supposedly correct form.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Is Mjroots an admin? It appears he prefers a BRP (bold–revert–protect) approach, per this admin action. Dicklyon (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm an admin, have been for 7 years. Perhaps you would have preferred that I indeffed you rather than starting this discussion? Believe me, I was close to doing it. As for the locking of the Harz Narrow Gauge Railways article at a title which it had been at since April 2009, if there is any admin who thinks that my action was heavy-handed, please feel free to remove the move protection from the article. Mjroots (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Mjroots. IMHO, admins should stick to resolving behavior issues. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: in part, this is a behaviour issue. Contrary to what Mandruss has claimed above, it is not a personal dispute between myself and Dicklyon. There are many other editors who have challenged his page moves over a number of months. Mjroots (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I appreciate the ping, as I would like to correct your mischaracterization of my words. I suspect you're referring my phrase "ideological witch hunt", and witch hunts are not personal disputes between two editors. I don't think I referred to you explicitly or otherwise. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: - I may have misinterpreted in the face of comments like "I don't give a damn what you think" from a 10-year editor as referring to myself. I don't think I've ever said that. I do give a damn about editors opinions. If I think they are wrong then I'll engage in reasoned argument without resorting to name-calling, incivility and the like - pretty sure I've managed that here. As I said above, there is a specific problem, and an attempt to find a solution to that problem, which we are discussing here. Mjroots (talk) 09:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Referenced comment is on this page, in this complaint. Ctrl+F is your friend. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, seen and understood. Mjroots (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots:, your user page notes that one of your hobbies is railways. I think that's awesome, and sorry we collided on some minor style issues in that content area. However, per WP:INVOLVED, probably it would be best if you would refrain from using your admin powers in such cases, like you did to no useful effect on the Harz article; you can call for neutral admin help as well as any other editor can. And to characterize a single revert as move warring is prejudicial; please don't do that. Dicklyon (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

And by the way, the premise of your complain here has your involvement build in: "His moves of railway related articles are often controversial and challenged" and is factually incorrect, since only a few of my moves of railway related articles have been challenged. Dicklyon (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Three comments: Mjroots should probably not be crowing about how he was going to indef an editor whom ANI respondents are increasingly defending against Mjroots's less excessive move-ban idea; I don't think it's Dicklyon who was lucky Mjroots did not take such a misguided action, which would have been challenged and questioned even more strongly. I agree that Mjroots seems not exactly administratively neutral about the topic, either. When more and more respondents are telling Mjroots that this is a content dispute not a behavior matter, and evidence (e.g. Dicklyon's actual RM success rate, and low rate of reverted moves) disprove the allegation of disruptive behavior, it's time for Mjroots to just retract; there's clearly not going to be a consensus for sanctions anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• No word in bold from me, but a word of caution: I think this discussion is at the wrong level. Yes, editors who are focused on the manual of style are often frustrating to deal with. Yes, they do all too frequently drive away people who're doing far more useful and productive work than they do. But I think it's important not to take out that frustration on Dicklyon personally. In my view the way to deal with capitalisation is to start a larger-scale discussion about it where we can vent all this obloquy and then get the WMF to come up with a software solution that accommodates the capitalisation preferences of the user on the client side without affecting the server side. (It'd be far more useful than the ill-thought-out rubbish they waste programmer time on at the moment.)—S Marshall T/C 23:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Extended comment by ClemRutter

Putting a break here, as this comment by CR is only partially on-topic, and necessitated a lengthy response; this side discussion shouldn't impede others' participation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Strong comment As I have never sought to be an admin, and rarely if ever touched a railway article I do not usually comment on admin pages. I also have respect for editors real lives and try not to follow up on poor behaviour over Diwali, Hannukah, the 12 days before Epiphany etc. I recognise and appreciate the efforts of the team SMcCandlish/DickLyon in trying to enforce consistency- but despair that they cannot accept when they are wrong. I am enfuriated when superior knowlege of redundant arcane wiki-procedure is used to stifle debate. Talk:Woodhead line#Requested move 17 December 2016 is not closed. The judgement that 5 for and 5 against is consensus cannot stand. Please examine the debate, and see the tactics that were used to enforce downcasting on the name of a line. The title was following MOS:GEOUNITS, end of story. The line was closed after Beeching cuts so it no longer exists, and is now mainly called the Longdendale trail, or the Woodhead Route.

I note that here, the debate appears to have been terminated by an interjection from one of the parties forcing the wrong level of indentation. I was not pinged to inform me that this debate was taking place, finding out in general conversation at the London Wikimeetup. I still do not understand why a fellow admin overrode Redroses edit-warring protection, or why someone slapped an inappropriate frightening looking template on my talk page.User talk:ClemRutter#Just FYI Please view- I have left it untouched as an exhibit.

After the team terminated the debate on Talk:Woodhead line#Requested move 17 December 2016, I opened a new section Talk:Woodhead line#Procedure and what we have learned There are two ways forward, one is sitting in the newspaper archives at Stockport Central Library for several days, or we can refer back to MOS:GEOUNITS and look for precedent and implication. MOS:GEOUNITS (is part of CAPs policy) and I cited Panama Canal for an example of a linear geographical feature, then there is the Kiel Canal, Suez Canal and of course the big ditch itself the Manchester Ship Canal. All these exist have good sources to verify the ultimate word is capitalised. Very little is now being written about modern UK lines, but we did start an article on the Ordsall chord : it had to be capitalised as we got it wrong. All contemporary sources show that it needed to be upcapped Ordsall Chord does follow MOS:GEOUNITS validating the the policy and the providing us with the precedent we need. Even so, if consensus hasn't been reached then right or wrong we revert the spelling to the one used as the article passes from stub to start.

At the point when 'consensus' was redefined to mean what ever it needed to mean- I was fairly convinced that I was a pawn in an edit war, and tonight I fully expect to have my words redefined and some other arcane trivial regulation to be thrown at me.

Can we also include Glossop Line in the list of over-enthusiastic downcapping.

The High Peak and Hope Valley Community Rail Partnership.

The Glossop Line is part of the High Peak and Hope Valley Community Rail Partnership (HP&HVCRP). The CRP was reconstituted in 2008 from a Rural

Transport Partnership that had been in existence for over 10 years.

Source:/www.gov.uk/government/uploads

We will find downcased examples, but above we see the modern government casing for the totality of the line. Also if you made a site visit you will find colloquial usage for the short chord from Dinting Junction to Glossop is often downcased, to distinguish it from the chord from Dinting Junction to Hadfield. Yes both exist, and a local still often get it wrong. It is a gross waste of time, to have to explain over and over again why downcasing is an error.presu

This page is not designed to discuss the a feature of British English, but to decide how to persuade a pair of editors from imposing their strong POVs, against policy and consensus. I am not admin so I cannot take part in that discussion- but I would welcome a solution that encourages them to keep up their efforts on working to improve WP, but prevents them from mistakenly editing the title of any article that is written on a UK subject, or has a Use British English tag. Regretfully, --ClemRutter (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I fully support what you've said - many of the people who have commented here in support of DickLyon are currently attempting to prevent the capitalisation of "Self Loading Rifle" even though it's the proper name and the WP:COMMONNAME of the British Army's former main service rifle. It's purely based on a misunderstanding of military nomenclature, there's no bad faith involved, but the general unwillingness to listen to people who are more well informed on the subject matter is part of a pattern with DickLyon - and yes, I'm still annoyed about him saying "What are you smoking?" and then saying it was just a joke when called up on his incivility. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I haven't been involved at L1A1 self-loading rifle, but I have now looked at it. It's an open RM and Dicklyon is participating in the RM process as he is supposed to do. He has not moved that article. If the consensus goes against him, I have no doubt he will defer to it. If it goes against you, I expect the same from you. There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that I'm aware of that requires editors to "listen to people who are more well informed on the subject matter". So Dicklyon is conforming to process and you are inventing your own rules of Wikipedia decision-making. I submit that any disruption there is yours and anybody's who supports that sort of reasoning. It seems to me that a large part of this conflict results from editors whose voice volume far exceeds their knowledge of how Wikipedia works. And some all too quick to be highly offended about innocuous comments like "What are you smoking?". It is all becoming very clear. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

[Sorry this is long and detailed, but the mega-post it responds to covered a lot of ground.] @ClumRutter: You must not care much about the capitalization after all, since I just had to create that redirect to Longdendale Trail to fix your redlink. Anyway, If it's now "mainly called" that, then Woodhead line should be moved to that title, per WP:COMMONNAME policy, and the scope adjusted to focus on its modern use as other than a railway line, with the useless micro-stub of content at Longdendale Trail merged in. Why hasn't this been done? Could it because that would raise territorial hackles at a wikiproject that is unusually proprietary, and on a topic that is renowned for attracting obsessives' attention? Even if it's just a temporary oversight, aren't you just arguing heatedly but pointlessly about a moot matter and, worse, also helping push highly personalized drama-mongering about it at WP's kangaroo court, in a "case" explicitly intended to drive away another editor? (Note above that the admin who lodged this ANI said he did so in lieu of personally indefinitely blocking Dicklyon from WP entirely). So, pray tell, what is your justification for this, especially given that you decry style disputation as something that drives away editors? Is it okay to drive away editors as long as they're ones you personally find inconvenient?

"We will find downcased examples ... – That's the end of the matter right there, really. If RS are not consistent on the matter, do not use the Special Capitalization or other excessive stylization. This is a general rule found at MOS:CAPS, MOS:TM, and elsewhere, and the same basic principle can also be found in WP:COMMONNAME. You continued: "... but above we see the modern government casing" – So what? See WP:OFFICIALNAME. WP is not written in "Official UK Government Style". Governmental writing has a very strong tendency to capitalize virtually everything on which it focuses, even briefly (especially if there's anything governmental about that itself, e.g. a part of a transit system), and it does this explicitly as a form of emphasis, not because any linguists or any style manuals aside from the government's own would agree it made sense. First rule of MOS:CAPS: Do not capitalize as a form of emphasis.

Moving on, your belief that something is a proper noun does not make it one just because you keep repeating it in the face of evidence to contrary. Dicklyon (and I) have no trouble admitting when RMs do not go our way. We take that in stride and move on to other cleanup. Rather, it is insular camps like various transit-related projects who continue to fight article by article by article against the exact same types of moves even after RM precedent turns against them again and again. (See WP:TE.) When a proponent of one MOS segment (e.g. GEOUNITS at MOS:CAPS) is arguing against others who cite much more of MOS:CAPS (with support from MOS:TM and several others, including non-MoS guidelines like WP:NCCAPS), and that editor is then trying to make his opponents out to be "infuriating" and "despair"-inducing MoS obsessives, that person very badly needs to read WP:KETTLE and find something else to do here.

BTW, you are not interpreting GEOUNITS correctly, and I would know since I wrote most of it. Woodhead line is none of an: institution, organization, or other legal entity; nor city, county, country, or other political or geographical unit. It's a former strip of train track, that was the property of various entities of the first sort, and ran between and through entities of the latter sort. And this was already clearly explained, repeatedly, at the RM. So why are you playing WP:ICANTHEARYOU about it here?

The fact of the matter is that these routine MOS:CAPS cleanup moves are opposed by no one but tiny clusters of one-topic-focused editors who persist, sometimes for years, in trying to mimic styles they find in specialist publications or on "official" signage instead of writing in encyclopedic style for a broad audience. It is a style that minimizes capitalization (not just because MoS says so but because the off-WP mainstream style guides MoS is based on also do the same, thus mainstream, general-audience publications do so – a real-world, average-user expectation of how English works, across all dialects and formal registers). The misguided belief that wikiprojects can declare themselves exempt from site-wide guidelines and policies on a random-preference whim is where the MoS- and WP:AT-related disruption comes from in this and in a high percentage of other instances. It's time for that sort of "our topic is a unique snowflake, so no general rule can ever apply to it" special pleading to come to an end. It wastes a tremendous amount of editorial energy, for no good reason and with no good result. See also MOS:FAQ#SPECIALIZED.

No one would dare try this approach with any other guideline, and it needs to stop with this one. Can you imagine someone, with a straight face, trying to convince us that WP:FRINGE did not apply to feng shui because feng shui is just different and has its own standards? That WP:SAL applies to all lists except lists about cheese? That MOS:TM doesn't apply to heavy metal music because using all-caps, decorative fonts, and fake umlauts are "normal" in metal magazines? That WikiProject Anthropology's templates are immune to WP:TMP? Anyone notice that any time something like this comes up at ArbCom, the result is that wikiprojects are told, yet again, that WP:CONLEVEL policy really does pertain to them too and really is about their behavior (e.g. in WP:ARBINFOBOX, etc.)? Anyone notice that the last time a wikiproject decided guidelines didn't apply to them and they could make up their own rules and require other editors to comply, the RfC turned 40 to 15 against them (with almost all of the 15 being participants in that project, i.e. they got near-zero external support, plus did not even get much support from their own fellows in the same wikiproject)?

I have to wonder just what the hell it takes before it sinks in that WP has its own style manual, title policy, and naming conventions (and history of precedent in working out their interaction). How many chest-beating, territorial threat displays have to have cold water dumped on them before it is finally understood that even if you refuse to write to conform to WP's style, other editors are permitted to and will fix the noncompliance later? If you submitted an article to Nature or The New York Times, you would conform to their style guide, or an editor there would bring it into conformance before publication. WP is no different, other than we're volunteers here with no deadline, so the compliance often comes along later.

Actually, the article itself suggests why there's this fight-to-the-death push to capitalize in this case: "The Woodhead line has achieved a cult status with collectors of railway memorabilia." It's a fandom matter, i.e. yet another WP:SSF. And now you're here trying to WP:CANVASS people into re-litigating that just-closed RM at a new thread you opened immediately under it? Seriously? At ANI itself? If you think the closer erred, take it to WP:MR, the prescribed process for challenging RM closes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I have to wonder just what the hell it takes before it sinks in that WP has its own style manual, title policy, and naming conventions...

I have to wonder when it will sink in that the MOS is a guideline and not a religious doctrine and that people like you and Dicklyon aren't its High Priests and Defenders of the Faith? --Calton | Talk 10:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

See WP:POLICY. Any time you believe you have a WP:IAR case to make against the applicability of any guideline (or policy for that matter), you are welcome to do so, and it's up to the consensus of the editing community whether you are making a legitimate IAR claim (i.e., that following the rule – whether it be in a page with {{Policy}}, {{Guideline}}, or whatever on it – will interfere with making an objective improvement to the encyclopedia). It is no accident that IAR is rarely invoked correctly or successfully. IAR does not mean "ignore any rule I don't like or find inconvenient for subjective reasons."  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

No, WP:POLICY applies to policies. Guidelines are not policies, and those who try to enforce them as such are mistaken, and they are the genesis of a great deal of disruption. There are rules and there are rules. Policies are the latter, and must be obeyed unless there's a damn good WP:IAR reason not to. The former are guildelines, which are suggestions as to the best practices on Wikipedia, but can be overridden whenever there is a good reason to do so. The failure to understand the differences between guidelines and policies is a major cause of musinderstanding and disuption, and it's high time that admins start to block editors who attempt to enforce MOS guidelines as if they were mandatory, which they are not. Guidelines have consensus, but it is consensus to be a guideline, not to be a mandatory policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

As the shortcut goes to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, I'm pretty sure it's not just about policies. Best practices are best practices. Dicklyon (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Guidelines may be overridden with a "good reason", while policies require a "damn good reason"? I'll resist the temptation to inquire about the differences, fascinating and nuanced as they must be. A "good reason" is still necessary. Guidelines are the default position, and users wishing to ignore them bear the burden of proof. "Oh, that's just a guideline" is not a good reason. "Our WikiProject wants it this way" is not a good reason. "I disagree with/don't care about the MoS" is not a good reason. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Guidelines describe things that are generally the case, but have many exceptions and/or frequently require interpretation about when an how to correctly apply them. It will sometimes be obvious why a guideline doesn't apply in a particular instance, at other times an explanation is needed but it will rarely require lengthy discussion or referenced burden of proof. For example using the official name of a subject as the title rather than the common name when the common name is ambiguous (e.g. I found the other day that the article about the textile design company commonly known as "Laura Ashley" is at Laura Ashley plc (rather than Laura Ashely (company) or similar) to disambiguate it from Laura Ashely which is about a person). Policies on the other hand will only rarely have exceptions not defined in the policy, and those exceptions need to be individually justified when they occur. For example the WP:Image use policy#Privacy rights tells us not to use photographs of people taken where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy but consent was not obtained, this would need a very strong reasons to disregard and would need to be specifically justified - the only example I can think of off the top of my head where this might happen is if the photograph itself is notable in some way and the subject of sourced discussion in the article (maybe it's a photograph that proved a politician was spying for another country). The entire manual of style falls into the category of "guidelines" and must not be blindly enforced as exceptions will not always be obvious to a bot or script. Thryduulf (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Just a notice to editors that I have bought movie rights to this thread, and ask everyone who further posts to consider lighting, camera angles, and residuals when commenting. Thank you. Randy Kryn 15:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Threats from SMcCandlish

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Having failed to make any case as to why WP should ignore sourced external realities in favour of simplistic styleguides, SMcCandlish ☺ is now resorting to threats and intimidation on behalf of ARBCOM. Has anyone else had one of these little billet doux? User_talk:Andy_Dingley#You_should_probably_be_aware_of_this

Of course I still stand by every word that I wrote here re DickLyon (and see the mess at Talk:L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle), although I admit I was mistaken in having thought that this ANI thread had been archived by now. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I had one of those and I treated it with the contempt it deserves, as I concluded that it was incorrectly posted to my page - L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle was not and is not subject to any ArbCom sanctions, and the edit he referred to was in fact carried out by someone else. Very sloppy. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

As I said to both of you: a) the template is not a "threat", it's a notice of WP:AC/DS applicability to a particular topic; b) ArbCom requires the notice to be delivered to parties who do not appear to be aware of the DS in question; c) we are not permitted to modify the wording of the notice; d) any editor may deliver it, not just admins, because it's simply a notice, and nothing more; e) the scope is "the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed", not a particular article like a gun or railway article. If, like me, you find the wording of the notices poor and unnecessarily menacing, and/or find that the entire notification process is a bunch of unnecessary WP:BUREAUCRACY, I've been saying this for years, and have (again) raised a thread about these problems at WT:ARBCOM, where you are welcome to comment. @Exemplo347: Please do not play WP:ICANTHEARYOU; it's already been explained to you that the edit in question was your own comment, not that of the intervening editor.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I suppose I imagined the part where you said you got the Diffs mixed up. Never mind. Let's all move on. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

There was a diff confusion about who unhatted your comment. There was no confusion whatsoever about the fact that you made the comment, which personalized a style dispute uncivilly. And it doesn't matter because the point of the template is to notify you of the DS scope, not to object to a particular comment. You have so been notified, whether you accept that or not. As has also already been explained to you. Please actually read what is posted to your talk page, instead of just reacting to the fact that someone dared to post there.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this is the venue for you to air whatever grievances you may have. Some of us have an encyclopaedia to edit. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• And now more forum-shopping here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Article_titles_and_capitalisation Andy Dingley (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Since Arbcom's DS notices are clearly not threats... Bullshit. Invoking official authority in direct response to comments about oneself can -- and in this case, I think are -- intended to have a chilling effect. SMcCandlish left one of those little gems on my User Talk page for a comment I made to him on this very page, just above. This is not someone doing due diligence, this is someone using cheap passive-aggressive rhetorical tactics to "win" an argument. --Calton | Talk 11:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Not, in fact, 'bullshit.' The notice is perfectly clear and not a threat (as indeed, its very text makes plain). If however you think it is being misused, misapplied, or wielded as a weapon or means of editorial suppression then you are on the right page and a new thread awaits you. If you take issue with the actual wording of the notice, then WP:ARCA is your next port of call. Cheers, O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 11:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Nope, complete and 100% bullshit, your attempts at making excuses for SMcCandlish (like your closing the above) notwithstanding.

If you take issue with the actual wording of the notice... Not even close to the issue, as should be clear from simple reading, so thanks for trying to obfuscate things.

... a new thread awaits you. Genius, this IS the thread, despite (again) your attempts at making excuses for SMcCandlish (like your closing the above) notwithstanding.

Pro-tip: being officious is NOT an actual substitute for knowing what you're talking about. --Calton | Talk 00:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruption by Francis Schonken

I have been creating content on a long article Concerto transcriptions (Bach) for a while with perhaps 500 edits. It had an "in use" tag on it a few hours ago. Francis Schonken, who has been Tracking my edits for the last few months, was therefore aware that I was writing a huge amount of content there. I have been over the past 7 or 8 years one of the main contributors to articles on Bach's organ music; these pieces fall into that category. Francis Schonken has vandalised the article in the last few hours in an aggressive way. He did not give any warning. None at all. This was a very long article.

Could an administrator please restore the article that I was editing? I cannot even find the editing history.

It was a long article entitled Concerto transcriptions (Bach). Francis Schonken's editing on Bach-related articles was restricted before for tendentious editing on articles and their talk pages, mostly related to Bach's religious music. Those restrictions should probably be reinstated and strengthened. This editing might even warrant a block. Francis Schonken has shifted around a huge amount of content that I was creating. His aggressive actions show that he is not interested in helping the reader and indded is trying to stop me editing.

I cannot even find my editing history on the article on Concerto transcriptions (Bach) because of thr games he's been playing. He waits until the middle of the noght Europen time to make these disruotive edits. That is what is just happened. I will try to restore the article I was editing but would like help from an administrator. Perhpas the easiest wasy is to block his editing and then somehow restore the article. Mathsci (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: It must have been obvious when I made the filing that I was still correcting the original report, prepared in a state of consternation. While that was happening other editors started commenting, without allowing me time to proof-read this and then notify Francis Schonken. Mathsci (talk) 08:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mathsci: You were required to notify Francis Schonken of this discussion per the instructions at the top of the page. I did it for you. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 05:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

You removed my comment and made a bunch of edits to this post, but, whatever. I believe the article you have been contributing to is located at Concerto for unaccompanied harpsichord (Bach) which has a long history of your edits and has recently been moved from Concerto transcriptions (Bach) which is currently just a redirect accesible here. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Noting that the middle of the night European time is only an hour earlier for FS... O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 06:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) You also left {{in use}} in place for several days without actually working on the article. It was automatically removed as stale by JL-Bot yesterday. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 06:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: At this point, I believe the continuing conflict between FrancisSchonken and Mathsci, which boiled over in May 2016 and has merely accelerated since then ([15], [16], [17], [18], [19]), needs to go to ArbCom. It has lasted too long, and has still not improved despite a resultant 6-month 1RR editing restriction on Francis Schonken, who started right back on his apparent hounding of Mathsci when the 6 months ended. I'm not necessarily taking sides here; although I sense that Francis has normally been the aggressor, Mathsci has his own inopportune behaviors that exacerbate the situation. I would possibly normally in this sort of case recommend an IBAN, but I don't think that is going to work in this situation, since we have two classical-music knowledgeable editors whose contributions are usually good when they are not at each others' throats, and their editing paths may seemingly of necessity cross. I think at this point a good and thorough forensic analysis of who has done what, and why and how, needs to be done, in order to come up with solutions that work best for the encyclopedia. I would like to invite two neutral and experienced editors, Voceditenore and Johnuniq, to opine here, as they have seen some of this unfolding and have effectively opined about it here on ANI in the past. Softlavender (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I have restored Concerto transcriptions (Bach) myself having found out where it was put. There was no controversial content; I have been busy in Cambridge University Library reading reference sources on Vivaldi on the concertos transcribed. These volumes are not available on the web (they have detailed comments on hand written copies and transcriptions). The pattern of of HOUNDING is clear enough and has been described at WikiProject Classical Music (where Softlavender commented before). Francis Schonken made no comments there. He asked about a musical genre which is not current. In the past at WP:RSN he has been told not use primary sources, only secondary sources. His current editing looks like some kind of new stunt. Howeverem the article is restored. I will content adding content to it and the related summary content concerned on the 9 Vivaldi concertos Bach transcribed (the article L'estro Armonico). Mathsci (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Mathsci, you've actually just created a redirect loop Concerto transcriptions (Bach) -> Weimar concerto transcription (Bach) -> Concerto transcriptions (Bach). The article you want is Concerto for unaccompanied harpsichord (Bach), you'll want to make the others redirect there. Though since you've asked admin assistance, and SL is recommending ARBCOM, I don't know how wise doing anything further to those pages would be. That is regardless of whether I am a member of the "Peanut gallery" or otherwise. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The article I have been writing is now at Concerto transcriptions for organ and harpsichord (Bach). I wanted it to be at the old title,

"Concerto transcriptions (Bach)". If User:Doug Weller or another administrator is around, could they please help? I am not quite sure what happened. I probably made a careless error somewhere. It is the main article on wikipedia discussing those transcriptions. I chose the short title. This is OK, but not as short and snappy as I would like. Francis Schonken's intention was to cause distress not to help the reader. Mathsci (talk) 06:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Note: This is a recent, related thread on WikiProject Classical Music which was mentioned in a post above: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#Page_on_Bach.27s_unaccompanied_keyboard_concertos.3F. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Here is the discussion where Francis Schonken was advised by 5 editors not to use primary sources Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_215#Deletions_at_Six_Sonatas_for_Violin_and_Harpsichord,_BWV_1014–1019. He kept the thread running for three weeks in October. He ignored the advice. Mathsci (talk) 07:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• I have sorted out the redirects. Both point to the article currently being edited. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Although this issue seems to have been needlessly complicated. FS started the article at Weimar concerto transcription (Bach) on 15th December and the Concerto transcriptions for organ and harpsichord (Bach) on the 25th December. On the 31st december Mathsci redirected the Weimar article elsewhere as a POV Fork (It wasnt a fork by the standard definition at that point although arguably it is a 'fork' of content included at the latter article.) and it goes through a number of other redirects/moves before pointing at Concerto transcriptions. If the intended sole article location is to be 'Concerto transcriptions (Bach)' please start a formal move request, as at this point its just getting ridiculous. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• I have this vivid recollection of Francis Schonken having been topic-banned or something like that for moving articles without discussion. I find a reprimand by Boing! said Zebedee in the talk page archive, here, and I'm sure there's more. As far as I'm concerned Francis Schonken should be barred from making any moves at all (or forking content, re-forking content, renaming articles). Drmies (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes it happened here:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive925#Francis_Schonken.27s_disruptive_conduct_is_preventing_content_creation_on_Orgelb.C3.BCchlein

The problematic editing has not improved. All that has happened is that most of his edits are related to topics I edit. He has abandoned editing cantatas and mainly edits in the subjects close to my long established interests (e.g. Bach organ music and more generally my repertoire as a keyboard player/organist/accompanist). Mathsci (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the content because I have not edited classical music. I will comment that I have seen both editors, User:Mathsci and User:Francis Schonken, pop up on these drama boards in the past. My most recent encounter was of disruption of the dispute resolution process by Mathsci. Francis Schonken filed a request for moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Mathsci deleted it. While dispute resolution is voluntary, and an editor may decline to take part, deleting the request is a violation of talk page guidelines. I restored but archived the filing, and advised that a Request for Comments would be in order. Francis Schonken then asked what to do because Mathsci had deleted the RFC, which is similarly a violation of talk page guidelines and is disruptive. I advised that RFCs should not be deleted. As I said, I am not familiar with the content dispute, and Francis Schonken may indeed be disruptive, but Mathsci's conduct was also disruptive. I would optimistically suggest that these editors could request formal mediation. Otherwise topic bans may be necessary, and neither editor is clean. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

See above. As Drmies says, Francis Schonken has a history of disruption. You have been told that before at WT:DRN: you were told explicitly about his editing restrictions, but you chose to ignore it. Please then read what happened that resulted in his editing restrictions. Before his disruptive conduct was directed at many people. Now he finds it more convenient to have me as the sole target of his disruption, following some of the topics I have edited for 7 or 8 years. Here he took this anodyne carefully written article, still in the course of creation:

Concerto transcriptions for organ and harpsichord (Bach)

blanked it and copy-pasted it overnight to create this mess

[20].

All the editing history was lost. That was disruptive editing. This is the kind of content I create BWV 596. I believe it is fairly well written and it certainly does not require mediation. Mathsci (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Mathsci - It is true that at WP:DRN you told me that User:Francis Schonken had a history of disruption. That is true. (It also true that Mathsci has a history of disruption.) It is true that I chose to ignore the statement about a history of disruption, because DRN is a content forum, not a conduct forum. In the specific case, Francis Schonken tried to request discussion of content issues at DRN, and Mathsci deleted the post, which was a violation of talk page guidelines, and then I restored and archived it as a declined dispute. Then there was a lengthy discussion at the DRN talk page, but the DRN talk page isn't either a place to discuss content (discuss it at the DRN project page) or a place to discuss conduct. We are discussing conduct here at WP:ANI. I still see a content dispute and conduct issues. Sometimes discussing content in an orderly fashion can mitigate conduct disputes. I still think that the only two feasible alternatives are formal mediation or topic bans. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon I have no idea what you mean by "Mathsci has a history of disruption". That looks like a WP:PA. My editing in articles on baroque music, e.g. for the creation of Clavier-Übung III, was praised by the arbitration committee in 2010. The editing of Orgelbüchlein going on at the moment with contributions like BWV 611 and BWV 632 is no different. Nor are BWV 39, BWV 1044, BWV 1052, BWV 1053, BWV 1055, BWV 1017, BWV 1019, etc.

Francis Schonken has had many people complain about his edits on articles on baroque music. He made problems on BWV 4 and its talk page.

That has not happened with me. Indeed people thank me for my edits, e.g. for my creation of Organ Sonatas (Bach) and my edits to Giulio Cesare. Herr Jesu Christ, dich zu uns wend is an example of a collaboration with user:Gerda Arendt related to BWV 632.

The recent editing spree of Francis Schonken was clearly problematic. He seems to have suddenly disappeared immediately after making those edits:

1. "restore, + import from Concerto transcriptions (Bach), which was a WP:POV fork of this article" [21]
2. "undo page move to a topic with a different scope" [22]
3. "remove content not related to this topic" [23]
4. "matches with that content" [24]

The first appropriated a vast amount of material newly created by me over a few days that I was still in the process of writing (e.g. this content: BWV 596). The copying-pasting obliterated the editing history. The second was a page move shifting that newly created content to another title. The third blanked all that content at the new title. The fourth moved the talk page at that new title to the talk page where the newly created material had been moved. This was disruptive editing.

The request at WP:DRN by Francis Schonken was a frivolous request about the article L'estro Armonico. Francis Schonken said harvnb format could not be used on the references. He also said that no content could be added on Anne Dawson's Book because it was a primary source. He also did not want to use secondary sources for writing the content. These were by the top Vivaldi scholars, namely a 1999 preface to the work by Eleanor Selfridge-Field and a 2010 essay by Michael Talbot. I have written that content now. Normal editing, nothing unusual, no POV pushing, just anodyne content. Francis Schonken has a history of making frivolous requests at noticeboards, e.g. at WP:RSN where he prolonged the discussion for 3 weeks and ignored all advice. You were the person who told me to make a report at WP:ANI if I thought there was any disruption. The disappearance of new content overnight, content never before on wikipedia, is not something I've ever seen before. Mathsci (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: For the record, I'd like to confirm that Francis Schonken has an extensive history of disruption, which in my opinion at this point is quite damaging to the project. Something needs to be done, as nothing seems to alter his behavior for the better, and even after admonishments and sanctions, he reverts to disruptive behaviors. This is unfortunate, because he is able to contribute constructively, but often chooses to pick battles and be non-collaborative and downright vindictive instead. Maybe an ArbCom case on Francis alone is in order. Softlavender (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I would have closed this case with the following comments but as it's only be open for barely 24 hours, I'll leave time for further comment from admins and established users. Neither of these editors is a stranger to our Blocking Policy, for their behaviour.

I think most appropriate would a single final warning to Francis Schonken who must now take note that further disruption can, and probably will, engender a very long immediate block by any admin, and that will not even need the services of the Arbitration Committee.

Also a reminder goes out to Mathsci of WP:OWN and that we are not here to resolve content issues - people who live in glass houses should not throw stones, and he should be mindful about the use of the term ‘peanut gallery’ when with so few contributors to this thread it could be considered a direct WP:PA at clearly identifiable, well established and respected non-admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

To be fair Kudpung part of that "peanut gallery" comment may have something to do with my near literal re-write of their original post[25] and JKudlick's posting AN/I notification within a few minutes of the post being created. Mathsci may have felt a bit bombarded by our quick-reflex responses. I want to say that "show preview" exists for a reason, but, that's bridge under the water for me now. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I second Softlavender's confirmation of FS's extensive history of disruption. Apart from my chiming in at the random intervals when his name shows up on ANI, I have seen him behave very disruptively on Talk:Pontius Pilate's wife, at which article he removed a bunch of justified maintenance tags without addressing the issues and appeared to show a severe lack of understunding of proper sourcing standards, and at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, where he expressed sympathy for users twisting what their sources say and was very hostile while doing it (to the point of briefly making me want to take a wikibreak). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Note to Kudpung: Francis has a habit of not responding to these ANI threads, so it might be advisable to post your admonishment on his talk page where he can see it. Even though you pinged him, there's no actual proof that he has read your message. Softlavender (talk) 06:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I have undone the non-administrative close by Robert McClenon. He has so far shown no idea about my content editing. He made personal attacks on me above. Given the biased unsupported comments he has made here, which are not reflected in what other administrators have said, please could an administrator without his prejudies close this thread, possibly waiting until Francis Schonken reaapears on wikipedia. Thanks, Mathsci (talk)

• Note that I erroneously thought Robert McClenon had closed this thread (as indicated by the comment above and my edit summary). I stupidly thought I was reverting that close, because I had misread the diff, which I mistook for a close. I have thanked Jaron32 for reverting my edit and apologised to him for my stupid error.[26] I have scored through the comment above. I apologise unreservedly to Robert McClenon for mistaking his new section for a non-administrative close. It was a very stupid mis-reading by me. Mathsci (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments and Proposals

User:Kudpung admonished both User:Francis Schonken and User:Mathsci that neither of them was a stranger to Wikipedia’s blocking policy. When I said that both Francis Schonken and Mathsci have histories of disruption, I meant precisely that they both have lengthy block logs. Maybe Mathsci will say that they have learned from their mistakes and are a more collaborative editor than in the past. If so, good. (Some editors don’t have to be indeffed three times to learn to edit collaboratively.) I do see that User:Softlavender says that the current conduct of Francis Schonken is disruptive, that a strong warning is needed, and that unfortunately this dispute may need to go to arbitration. I still see conduct issues by both editors. I haven’t researched the content dispute, and the lengthy history of the content dispute is a reason why it may be necessary to have a quasi-judicial inquiry. However, this noticeboard needs to try to resolve this case without arbitration. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I see that Mathsci says that Francis Schonken’s filing at DRN was frivolous. Maybe it was. That wasn’t for Mathsci to decide. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I had suggested, and knew that I was being optimistic, that this content dispute be resolved by formal mediation. I see that Mathsci has rejected that idea. The question now is how to resolve this conduct dispute (since content resolution has failed). I see three possibilities. First, if we have confidence in the community of administrators, give both editors one last chance with a warning that any further disruption will result in an indefinite block. Second, give both editors one last chance, with a warning that any further disruption should go to ArbCom, knowing that an indefinite block from ArbCom is a Site Ban. Third, cut the Gordian knot now and give both editors a three-month topic-ban from classical music, and see if more reasonable editors can deal with the articles, with the knowledge that any further disruption, whether by these two editors or by other editors, will need to go to ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• You did not reply above to my comments. I wrote

The request at WP:DRN by Francis Schonken was a frivolous request about the article L'estro Armonico. Francis Schonken said harvnb format could not be used on the references. He also said that no content could be added on Anne Dawson's Book because it was a primary source. He also did not want to use secondary sources for writing the content. These were by the top Vivaldi scholars, namely a 1999 preface to the work by Eleanor Selfridge-Field and a 2010 essay by Michael Talbot. I have written that content now. Normal editing, nothing unusual, no POV pushing, just anodyne content. Francis Schonken has a history of making frivolous requests at noticeboards, e.g. at WP:RSN where he prolonged the discussion for 3 weeks and ignored all advice. You were the person who told me to make a report at WP:ANI if I thought there was any disruption. The disappearance of new content overnight, content never before on wikipedia, is not something I've ever seen before.

and that is what I meant. Francis Schonken was being disurptive in saying "Anne Dawson's Book" could not be explained in an article. There are sources that explain it by the scholars Michael Talbot and Eleanor Selfridge-Field. The current article says the following:

The Ryom-Verzeichnis, explained in detail in the two volumes Ryom (1986) and Ryom (2007), contains a summary of the known surviving publications, handwritten manuscript copies and arrangements of the concertos. Of these eight were arranged by Bach: three of those for solo violin were arranged for harpsichord; two double violin concertos for organ (two keyboards and pedal); and one of the concertos for four violins was arranged for four harpsichords and orchestra. Four further keyboard arrangements appear in Anne Dawson's book, an English anthology dating from around 1720 of arrangements for clavichord, virginal or harpsichord prepared by an unknown hand. As Ryom (1986, pp. 616–617) points out, the fifth concerto Op.3, No.5, RV 519, is the unique concerto to have resulted in so many transcriptions: these are described in detail in Talbot (2010).

and then later:

Anne Dawson's Book, part of a bequest of baroque musical manuscripts now held in the Henry Watson Music Library in Manchester, contains arrangements for single-manual instrument of the following concertos:

• Op.3, No.5, RV 519 (2 violins, violoncello)
• Op.3, No.7, RV 567 (4 violins)
• Op.3, No.9, RV 230 (solo violin)
• Op.3, No.12, RV 265 (solo violin)

Selfridge-Field describes these as replacing "the virile acrobatics of Vivaldi's violino principale [by] the gentle graces of virginal ornamentation: shakes, coulées, long apoggiaturas, and so forth."

These are standard edits to an article on baroque music. Just like these:

Template:Multi-listen item

Nothing contentious, nothing controversial. (It took two or three days to create the audio file from scratch.) Presumably that is part of my history of disruptive editing. You did not that have the courtesy to reply to my comments where I made them, presumably because it would upset your case that I am a reasonably skilled content editor. BWV 39, BWV 1044, BWV 1052, BWV 1053, BWV 1055, BWV 1017. BWV 1019, BWV 611, BWV 632 and BWV 596 are all examples of that, the last three fairly recent. Mathsci (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

Disruption of This Thread by User:Mathsci I posted the above about an hour ago. It was reverted as follows https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=prev&diff=759895339 by User:Mathsci with the notation ‘prefer administrative close by non-biased party’. Clearly this thread requires an administrative close, and I wasn’t attempting to close the thread, only to recommend some options for closing it. I thank User:Jayron32 for restoring my post. In view of Mathsci’s repeated recent demonstrations of disregard of talk page guidelines, I suggest a fourth close option, a warning to User:Francis Schonken that any further disruption will result in a three-month topic-ban from classical music, and a warning to Mathsci that any further deletion of posts from talk pages or project pages will result in an indefinite block. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC) Again, as explained above and below, this was an error I made in misreading a diff and thinking I was reverting a non-administrative close. Sorry about that error. See above and below. If you want to remove this section and the one below, please do so. They do not seem to serve any purpose. Mathsci (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC) Apology accepted. However, I would take exception to having any of this material removed, because the removal of talk page threads causes confusion and is usually more disruptive than whatever was said in the first place. By the way, this thread still does need an administrative close. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC) A problem is that these subsections appear when trying to edit the new subthread that you made above. Mathsci (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC) Over and Out However, since Mathsci clearly doesn’t want to hear my comments, and is claiming that I haven’t answered his questions (which I have), WP:IDHT, I am finished with this thread unless an administrator requests my re-involvement. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC) As explained above, I misread the diff of your edit and thought you had made a non-administrative close. Many apologies for that. The comment I wrote above (now scored though) indicated that. The error does not mean that I do not want to read your comments. Again apologies for making the error. Mathsci (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC) Apology accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC) Please remove or compress this section and the one above. They appear to serve no purpose. Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Robert McClenon, we already have an admonishment by Kudpung that:

I think most appropriate would [be] a single final warning to Francis Schonken who must now take note that further disruption can, and probably will, engender a very long immediate block by any admin, and that will not even need the services of the Arbitration Committee.

There was no similar block admonishment to Mathsci. Since you have not researched Francis Schonken's very long and very extensive history of disruption (against many editors and articles/pages, not just against Mathsci), I think you are misreading the situation. Francis is the aggressor, and Mathsci has merely been reacting, not always in the best way, but there is only so much aggressive hounding one editor can take without losing their cool and doing something unwarranted. I don't personally think this "Comments and Proposals" section is warranted or necessary. I Support Kudpung's proposal of an immediate indefinite block of Francis Schonken (with standard offer), if he continues to disrupt the project or continues to hound Mathsci. Softlavender (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I am willing to accept the judgment of others who have more of the situation than I have. I have reported on what I have reported and am willing to accept the opinion of the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

IP editing talk page of Orgelbüchlein refusing to look at main secondary sources

• ‎69.165.196.103 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This editor arrived out of the blue while I have been busy creating new content. I created BWV 611, then BWV 632 and am now in the middle of BWV 621. There are two sources that cover these chorale preludes in detail:

• Peter Williams, Organ Music of J.S, Bach, 2003, C.U.P.
• Russell Stinson, Orgelbüchlein, 1999, O.U.P.

This editor has not made many edits to wikipedia. They have disclosed that they do not have access to the two main secondary sources. They have been making arbitrary comments on the talk page, not based on any sources. When I told them that, unless they had access to the sources, we couldn't really discuss the article, they decided to go to WP:DRN. User:Johnuniq aleready informed them that the points that they were making not relevant to the article and advised them to come back at a later point. That seemed like good advice. They ignored his comments. The whole thing looks very odd to me as they don't seem to know about the subject of the article, Orgelbüchlein. They have made comments about other well-known compositions of Bach (the first Schübler Chorale), but these are quite unrelated to this article. I find this a bit odd. They left a message for Francis Schonken on his talk page. That also seems odd, for a newbie. Mathsci (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no need to have access to sources to edit a Wikipedia page, at least not in matters of formatting, also according to an admin comment made on the talk page. I did not disregard the other user (at least, the edits I made where before he intervened), I only kept the discussion on the talk page to avoid an edit war (User Mathsci had already reverted my attempt at solving the issues I noted), and also to not disrupt the creation on content on the page (despite the fact that Mathsci does not own the page and that "Wikipedia can be edited by anyone". All my attempts at discussion were in good faith. After seeing it did not work, I went to WP:DRN in the hope of having somebody else (WP:UNINVOLVED) comment on the issue, which was NEVER about the content of Mathsci analysises, NOR the books, but the general formatting of the page. What is wrong with going to DRN? Isn't that a good way to resolve the (very obvious) dispute we're having?

I left a message for Francis Schonken because he had posted in the discussion before and therefore could potentially be concerned.

Mathsci, please read WP:IPs are human too (and WP:Please do not bite the newcomers, for the matter)... 69.165.196.103 (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@69.165.196.103: If you are claiming to be an old editor on a new IP (thus explaining your knowledge of obscure WP-namespace pages and your knowing to message FS), why do you cite WP:BITE? You aren't a "newbie" if you have been editing for a while and just got a new IP. Alternatively, if you are claiming to be a new editor, how do you explain your knowledge of Wikipedia policies, guidelines and essays, and your posting on FS's talk page? You can't have it both ways. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I cited BITE because the other involved user in this dispute was acting like I was a newcomer... It was my attempt at a friendly reminder that whatever he thinks of me, we both should respect each other. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 05:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• A specialised article like this on a collection of 46 of Bach's chorale preludes for organ—one of Bach's masterworks—can only be edited using secondary sources. The IP has been told that but refuses to accept it. They even tried to modify the title of this section. That was not helpful.

This complex article is still in the course of creation: the talk page has a section indicating which sections on individual chorale preludes are unwritten, i.e. empty shells. I have recently been creating new sections (BWV 611, BWV 632 and most recently BWV 621, still in process). Meanwhile the IP has made remarks completely tangential to that content -creation and indeed the content of the article. Without any concrete suggestions beyond removing one or two widely spaced wikilinks to Catherine Winkworth, he has made no positive suggestions about the article. Instead he has made a series of constantly shifting comments on the talk page, jumping from one point to another. None of them directly relates to the content being added at the moment. And none of it is sourced. Present and future content can be found in the two sources; when he was told that, he showed no interest in looking at the sources. At one stage he accused me of original research; he retracted that accusation when I reminded him of the rubric in the article explicitly naming the two principal secondary sources on which almost all the content is based.

He admitted that he has no access to either of the secondary sources. He did say that he had the 1933 Riemenschneider musical score. And that he also has the book of John Elliott Gardiner, "Bach: Music in the Castle of Heaven" which is about the cantatas. Neither of them is useful for the particular article.

The IP was given advice by User:Johnuniq—to go and edit somewhere else for a while while the article is under construction. He has ignored that advice. He has made very few edits to wikipedia. He has made a handful of edits related to classical or early music. Mathsci (talk) 03:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

User:69.165.196.103 - You cannot file a dispute resolution request at the dispute resolution noticeboard concurrently with filing a conduct thread here. Your request at DRN will be kept on hold until this thread is resolved. (It may then be activated or closed.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Wait, really? It's off-topic for this thread, but does that mean that attempting to shut down an ANI thread by attempting to connect it to an unrelated DRN thread is something that has happened before? I think I might have something to bring to ArbCom for an unrelated case, if that's the case. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Hijiri88 - You ask whether attempting to shut down an ANI thread by attempting to connect it to an unrelated DRN thread is something that has happened before. I am sure that any sort of game-playing in order to attempt to shut down an ANI thread has happened before. What actually happens is that a DRN thread can be shut down on account of an ANI thread. Maybe I misunderstood the question. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

What Mathsci wrote is (once again, sadly) false. I haven't edited anything on the article itself (beside the few edits, that were simply formatting, that were reverted by Mathsci). I actually filed the DRN BEFORE (21:55 UTC, which is 30 minutes before) I was added here. Mathsci went here afterwards. The issue was never the books or the sources. I never actually even tried to edit the content of the analysis of the chorales on the page. The issue was formatting. Somebody, please tell me, since when do I need access to sources to edit formatting? Mathsci - Could you please stop trying to create a problem and instead cool down and try to make a solution? You attacked me repeatedly (including here) - with false statements - for example, I haven't edited the actual Orgelbuchlein page since the other user told me not to - also, I clearly MYSELF said that the Gardiner book was of no use - the issue was (or I tried to make it so, before you started talking about something else) formatting. If you disagree on that, state why clearly. I'm still a human being and the conduct of Mathsci is not very polite (this is not the first time, see his user talk page...).

Now the time for quotes: (from above) "suggestions beyond removing one or two widely spaced wikilinks to Catherine Winkworth" - It wasn't 1 or 2, but 16...

From the talk page Talk:Orgelbüchlein#NPOV_far_from_restored - "Mathsci said above "No you cannot discuss the article without the book. You don't seem to be interested in creating content; otherwise you would have acquired the book", but the issue is not all about those books. There may be other valid sources and besides issues about the appropriateness of the images, inclusion of hymn texts, etc. will not be solved by reference to the sources. Editors who have access to good sources are essential, but others may edit and discuss articles when they do not have access to those sources and core content creators don't own the article." (by Fences&Windows 12:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC))

idem, today, Mathsci: "If you don't have the sources, none of your personal comments are relevant." Talk:Orgelbüchlein#Issues_as_of_January_2017

"I have put the "in use" tag on the whole article since you edited an unfinished section." - see "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone"

And now, back to what I wanted to say - I tried to talk of the formatting. Instead, every single time - I mean, look at the talk page - every single time - Mathsci instead kept mentioning how he was working hard to create content and that I was disruptive (remember - I actually only made those little edits I talked about - only once) and how I ABSOLUTELY needed to have to books to even dare put a comment on the talk page... Isn't the purpose of a talk page exactly to discuss the page and how to improve it -including issues like formatting- without disrupting the main article? Ok sorry it's 1 AM here... I'll continue my defense later. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 05:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• If there is an implied possible connection to Francis Schonken, the IP geolocates to Canada, and Francis says he lives in Europe, although he could be visiting Canada or have a meatpuppet or relative in Canada. That said, with less than 90 edits, the IP has posted on seven of the same pages that Francis has [27], with the majority (over 60%) of the edits being on the article and talkpage of Orgelbüchlein, the main target of Francis's harassment of Mathsci. They also clearly have an immense knowledge of obscure Wikipedia essays, guidelines, policies, and noticeboards and such, despite an extremely low edit count. And why they are suddenly taking an immense interest in a multitude of finer points about the Orgelbüchlein article is rather baffling. I would keep the IP on a short leash and admonish them that continued disruption on the article talk page -- shifting what they want to talk about, prolonging unfounded accusations, failing to make accurate or implementable edit requests, failing to hear responses, and so on -- will result in a block or a page ban. Softlavender (talk) 07:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• I have been wondering who is behind the IP. Due to some recent on-wiki developments, my first thought was that the IP might be someone from Wikipediocracy hoping to get a reaction from Mathsci—a reaction that would later be used as evidence against him at ANI or Arbcom. However the simpler explanation is more likely—the IP is yet another example of the wisdom of the internet. I posted at the article talk that since Orgelbüchlein is being actively developed, it is pointless debating how many links should be used or whether particular passages have the right number of quotes. Those points are window dressing that come after significant development has finished. I am watching the page and my suggestion is that any commentary that is not for an actionable proposal regarding significant issues should be politely ignored. There are lots of other articles where the IP's expertise could be demonstrated and a running commentary on perceived formatting flaws is not needed. Regarding this report, unfortunately the IP's disruption is part of anyone can edit and is unlikely to reach a sanctionable level. Just ignore it. Johnuniq (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I presume you are using the phrase "the wisdom of the internet" ironically. And yes, I think there's generally no point in even replying to nonsense, especially if it is excessively drawn out or repeated, or constantly changes its tune, invokes every wikilaw under the sun, and/or runs to noticeboards. At worst the article itself can be semi-protected if the disruption moves back there. Softlavender (talk) 09:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not, in any way, related to Francis Schonken. I'm a musician from Canada (so that's maybe why I edit articles about music...) who happened to stumble upon the Orgelbuchlein page, notice some issues, and since I saw that one editor seemed to be doing a lot of work on the article, took it to the talk page. Now, how is what I am saying nonsense? All I have said is verifiable and true if you look at the talk page - I brought the issue of formatting (I concede, it is a minor issue) in the hope the we could reach a consensus (since Mathsci had reverted my previous edits). It didn't work. Now I went to DRN in the hope that someone not involved would be able to help resolve the issue. I do not see how whatever I did is disruptive - I didn't edit the article after the reverts, since it clearly would only read to further reverts, and instead I kept the issue to the talk page. As such, I'll agree to stop posting on the Orgelbuchlein talk page if Mathsci agrees - as per his own talk page - to calmly resolve this current dispute and stop overracting. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

The 5 edits of the IP to Die sieben Worte Jesu Christi am Kreuz show an expert editor creating forked content of translations in BWV 621. The IP knows about wiki-markup in foreign languages, e.g. {{lang|de|Da Jesus an dem Kreuze stund}}, and writes edit summaries in German. This is not a new editor. The suggestion that after over 920 edits to Orgelbüchlein, some major secondary source might have been missed is completely untenable. As Softlavender has written, their editing conforms to WP:HOUND. Given the probable use of an IP to avoid scrutiny, the scale of their present disruption (the bogus request at WP:DRN) and their attempts here to continue that disruption/dissimulation, I think it would be reasonable to block the IP for some period. Mathsci (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I never suggested that you missed some major secondary source. Please, see that talk page. The 4 issues I mentioned were, in this order:
1. The purpose section, whose content was fine but needed possible to be expanded and written out as clear text, not as only a quote (again, I never questioned it's accuracy - only the format).
2. and 3. Formatting, per WP:OLINK and WP:SEAOFBLUE. Again, no need for reference to sources on that point at least.
4. Whether the inclusion of complete hymn texts was justified (an issue which had already been discussed and which didn't seem to reach consensus.
None of those issues require access to the sources Mathsci mentioned. I admit I did make a mistake by answering to your question about content without having access to the sources - which was a bad reaction on my part to the dispute we were having - that does not deserve a ban.

Now, your response, analyzed sentence by sentence: "The 5 edits of the IP to Die sieben Worte Jesu Christi am Kreuz show an expert editor creating forked content of translations in BWV 621." - It's clearly different content, the translation is not the same and it's clearly identified as being from another source - thus not forked content. Why the constant ad hominems? Good faith, please?

"and writes edit summaries in German." I wrote that one in German because the editor who put the language tag had, as edit summary, "deutscher", which is clearly German, so that is only good practice to make sure that it was understood.

"The IP knows about wiki-markup in foreign languages" - No I didn't, before clicking on {{lang}}, which was in the article, and reading the information there. See? No need for a university degree to understand that.

"As Softlavender has written, their editing conforms to WP:HOUND." - No. I have edited, indeed, according the the link provided - seven of the same pages as FS - including this page (strangely...), his talk page (to inform him of the DRN), the JS Bach talk page (for absolutely unrelated things), the Orgelbuchlein page (for apparently unrelated things), BWV 29 (for unrelated things, again), the DRN (for, as of yet, 2 unrelated topics - he hasn't yet responded to my DRN request because it's on hold) and, yes, the OB talk page (the only one we both edited recently) - he tried to contribute to the discussion and Mathsci instead attacked him and told him he was disruptive. Also, per this, Mathsci also edited some of the same pages as me...

"Given the probable use of an IP to avoid scrutiny," I am not using an IP to avoid scrutiny - I am from Canada and your "opponent" is from Europe (also WP:COLLAB) - I am trying to collaborate to solve an issue - why are you overreacting?

"the scale of their present disruption (the bogus request at WP:DRN)" - The dispute is legitimate, I tried talking things on the talk page but it didn't work, therefore I went for an uninvolved party to hope to resolve the situation about the formatting. Note that this is similar to other behaviour by Mathsci - accusing those he disagrees with of "causing disruption" - for example title=Talk%3AOrgelb%C3%BCchlein&type=revision&diff=758100954&oldid=758053274 here where he cleearly accuses FS of being disruptive even though the latter provided a valid point for the discussion.

"and their attempts here to continue that disruption/dissimulation," - I didn't bring the dispute here, Mathsci did by accusing me of being a sockpuppet, lacking experience, being from "Wikipediocracy" (whatever that is, doesn't sound nice).

@Mathsci: Peace Treaty Proposal So, I will try to end this reasonably and calmly and peacefully. Nobody is perfect. I probably have been overzealous on some issues regarding the OB page - which we discussed (without reaching consensus) on the talk page. To amend that, I propose that another, independent and uninvolved editor review the issue and determine whether there is indeed an issue with WP:OLINK.
Both of us could have better behaved ourselves on the talk page - I don't say that we are both equally to blame, but neither of us is blameless, for sure. My excuses. I do not recommend any course of action on this, as I'd rather leave that to somebody else.
I hope this is enough to solve this issue without resorting to further verbal abuse. Do you agree that we can come to resolve this without threatening bans or other overreactions? 69.165.196.103 (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Softlavender and Johnuniq have given an accurate assessment in this section of the editing by the IP. That the IP was tracking my edits while I was editing BWV 621 is also shown by their edits to the wikilink for Soprano clef in Clef, used twice in Orgelbüchlein. Johnuniq has suggested that the IP be ignored. Their request at WP:DRN, which involves Johnuniq, will therefore have to be removed. Mathsci (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

NO. The request at WP:DRN should not be removed, although it is on hold. Requests at WP:DRN should not be removed except in unusual circumstances as per talk page guidelines, such as if they are made by sockpuppets. The request at DRN is on hold; leave it on hold, please. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon has nevertheless removed the request at WP:DRN. Mathsci (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The IP is continuing their disruption.[28] As Johnuniq suggested, I will be ignoring their edits. Mathsci (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

You are chasing ghosts. WP:LETGO, for one. Second, there's absolutely no link between the soprano clef being used in BWV 621 and the good faith edit I made on the soprano clef section (have you even looked at what the edit was - besides the summary???) - you don't even have a history of editing "Clef".... While we're at it - ad absurdum - the soprano clef is used in the manuscript of every Bach cantata, therefore the edit I made on BWV 29, is, if we follow your line of reasoning, an attempt to disrupt you (note - this is irony). The edit I made on the talk page if FAR from being disruptive. Softlavender and Johnuniq could NOT have given an accurate assessment, because they seem to have based their understanding of the situation on the demonstrable exaggerated, proven false (see my preceding post) statements of Mathsci. I do not wish to be agressive - I didn't even start this ANI thread, I instead tried to go for DRN because that seemed more appropriate and less agressive, for one. WHY, why are you still clearly belligerent when I'm trying to solve the issue - I clearly am not intent in destroying you or the work you did or whatever. Actually, all of the edits I made to date on all articles (except the 3 or 4 on the OB, which you reverted for yet to be clarified reasons) have been constructive, content improving edits. Could we please stop this drama board discussion and just cool off? (note to admins: Please close discussion) 69.165.196.103 (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

The probability that the text I was editing—"Da Jesus an dem Kreuze stund"—should suddenly appear in the IP's edits is zero. Likewise that the use of soprano clef on the Tabalatura image should suddenly appear in the IP's edits. Softlavender and Johnuniq have accurately described the IP's editing. The IP's response has been WP:IDHT. My steady editing of Orgelbüchlein continues (now starting BWV 612). Mathsci (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I first edited SWV 478 on January 13, but you first edited BWV 621 on January 14. Your claim is frivolous - cool down, for your own health, as per your own talk page: User_talk:Mathsci#Removing_someone_else.27s_survey_submission_in_an_ongoing_WP:RM.3F. The soprano clef claim is similarly not true. Why are you not remaining WP:CIVIL?

Ahem. I put an "in process" mark next to BWV 621 on the to-do list on the article talk page at 00:35 on 13 January[29] and started editing that part of the article at 01:00 with this edit.[30] The first link to Soprano clef in the article was here[31] at 10:02 on 8 January. The fact that the IP has been tracking my edits seems clear. Just above for example the IP decided to bring up a coronary problem that arose some time back, unrelated to anything here. Mathsci (talk) 08:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

There was nothing uncivil about the comment immediately preceding yours, unless one considers "IDHT" to be uncivil, but the whole point of IDHT is that the user against whom it is targeted is ignoring others. You are therefore not the right person to say "my response has not been IDHT" -- that is for others to decide. Your grasping at various bits of alphabet soup like this is beginning to make you look very much like a wikilawyer, and I am beginning to think you should be blocked from editing. If you are right on the article content and Mathsci is wrong, the burden is on you to demonstrate that at the appropriate venue; don't base your ANI case on your supposedly being right about article content unless you are able to prove it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on Mathsci to prove his allegations. All my edits have been properly sourced, with references where appropriate. I edited SWV 478 before he even touched BWV 621, as I already said and is easily verifiable on the respective pages history. You are also mis-interpreting my response; I was proving that my recent edits have no link with the actions of Mathsci... Let's hope he doesn't find a way to link my recent edits on Ich weiß, daß mein Erlöser lebt... I referred to CIVIL because Mathsci made repeated personal attacks on me... To resolve this dispute, I will accept to not edit the Orgelbuchlein page (and, for the matter, the talk page) until such time as Mathsci completes the analysis of the remaining chorales. I just expect Mathsci will cool down - I have no interest in continuing this pitched battle. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC), edited 69.165.196.103 (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Request for Closure

This thread has run long enough and it is probably time to close it as per User:Softlavender with a warning or warning. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Why is your comment sufficiently important as to need its own heading? Johnuniq (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mathsci: I'll amend the proposal above - as per the comment I made above, I will back off the Orgelbuchlein talk page if, in exchange, Mathsci agrees to let somebody else (who is uninvolved) come see the issue I mentioned and act/not act/do whatever he thinks right upon it. Hopefully this brings an end to this dispute we're having over a couple of links and we can all go back to being friends. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

We don't make deals on Wikipedia. And beyond that, at least two uninvolved editors have already looked at your edits and deemed them disruptive. It's also very clear that you are an extremely experienced Wikipedia editor. Softlavender (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

See my comments above... 69.165.196.103 (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Why did the IP open a DRN case on behalf of Francis Schonken [32], who is not party to the dispute (FS only made a single post to any of the article-talk threads in question -- a suggested translation format on 3 January [33], nothing more, 12 days before the DRN case was ever filed)? Why did the IP not file the case request on behalf of himself instead? The dispute revolves around the IP's numerous and varied and ever-changing requests on the article talk page from 1 January onwards: [34]. I suggest the case be thrown out as suspect and intentionally disruptive. (Here is the live link to the case [35].) It's also very obvious, what with his requested deals, the silly "Peace Treaty Proposal", and the DRN he filed on someone else's behalf, not to mention the circular and endlessly disruptive posts on the article talk page, that the IP is playing a game of what Floquenbeam would call "silly buggers". -- Softlavender (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I filed the proposal on my behalf, that is very clearly written: "Filed by 69.165.196.103 on 21:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)." FS is an involved user (by the fact, as you stated, he participated and the he was attacked by Mathsci for making a disruptive edit, [36]), so I added him. Your post is just short of being slanderous. My requests were simple, stable, and they did not change; here they are copied (again, you can go see on the original talk page [37]):
"1. The purpose section, whose content was fine but needed possibly to be expanded and written out as clear text, not as only a quote (again, I never questioned it's accuracy - only the format).
2. and 3. Formatting, per WP:OLINK and WP:SEAOFBLUE.
4. Whether the inclusion of complete hymn texts was justified (an issue which had already been discussed and which didn't seem to reach consensus.
I do not see why this battle must continue.69.165.196.103 (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Stop refactoring others' posts, as you did here. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

You listed the "Users Involved" as "Mathsci, Francis Schonken" [38]. Francis, having only submitted a sample translation format (12 days beforehand, in a thread unrelated to the putative disputed issues), isn't involved, so he should not have been listed. The dispute, such as it is, is between you and Mathsci, and you didn't even list yourself. Softlavender (talk) 05:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I only removed the bold marking on the first part of your post as it clearly brings undue atttention to a false statement: if you the DRN thread carefully it becomes clear that I am filling on my own behalf and that the issue I am talking about is effectively the one between me and Mathsci, and that as per later amendments other possibly involved users were added (WP:DRN). 69.165.196.103 (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

IP, you're not helping yourself. I noticed it a while ago but wasn't going to bring it up until you did yourself: why are you making such a big-ass deal out of a few DABLINKs? It seems like you are deliberately trying to get under Mathsci's skin and to waste his time, and grasping for any excuse to do so. This is why I think you are either FS (who hasn't logged on in five days) or a friend of his. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

That's not true, here is your initial filing: [39] (I've listed it twice already, but if you want it again there it is). You plainly designated the two "Users Involved" as "Mathsci, Francis Schonken". Softlavender (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's resolve this calmly. Here's my POV of what happened -
I was looking at the OB page and noticed that the translations of the chorales were not, in my opinion, good content (as can be seen in this thread [40]. Me and Mathsci had a, compared to this flame war, civil discussion, in which I ended conceding that the page in it's current format was the best that could be done; per the following quote: "Ok, I'll concede that we can't do anything about Christ ist erstanden because there doesn't seem to be a (good) translation that is in the public domain. As for In dulci jubilo, I'll concede because I can't find an elegant way to write what I want. There are some further issues with the page, but I'll take that into another discussion thread since this has gone long enough already, and it's about another subject. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)"
Then, I went on and opened another discussion thread, which listed the four issues I mentioned, [41] and which I will again copy in the abbreviated form, as above:

1. The purpose section, whose content was fine but needed possibly to be expanded and written out as clear text, not as only a quote (again, I never questioned it's accuracy (beyond possibly requiring more than one source) - only the format).
2. and 3. Formatting, per WP:OLINK and WP:SEAOFBLUE. Again, no need for reference to sources on that point at least.
4. Whether the inclusion of complete hymn texts was justified (as opposed to only one or two verses)

I proceeded to implement part of them, but Mathsci reverted, stating "I have put the "in use" tag on the whole article since you edited an unfinished section." The discussion did not go much further, because Mathsci then made an issue out of, one, the form of the article (which I had never mentioned and which I sadly got distracted into, mea culpa) and, two, his hard work on the article (which I had previously acknowledged "2. Also, per WP:OWNER, you do not own this article and although you might feel possessive about it, that does not mean that I (or anybody else) is barred from contributing to it. Also, disagreements should be calmly resolved, without resorting to attacks or whatever else. So, in a nutshell, great contribution on the article as a whole. However, I am merely trying to propose improvements to details that you may have overlooked." from the talk page), and which, for clarity's sake, I do again: good work on the article so far, Mathsci.

Then, I got baited into talking about another detail I hadn't mentioned ([42]). I'll summarize the conversation; Mathsci wrote "I have the choice between quoting (2 pieces for the analysis of BWV 632) Which do you think is more appropriate and why?. I answered my honest opinion, and I somehow managed to slip in a comment about it being OR since Mathsci hadn't put in any inline citations for the matter. He thus corrected the issue by adding appropriate citations. The discussion, then, instead of focusing back on the issues I mentioned, went off topic on various personal comments and such. Since I clearly did not see a way how this could end on the talk page, I filed a notice on DRN (concerning the fact I didn't identify myself: User:69.165.196.103 does not exist so I questioned how to go on that matter - I decided into not adding a link, as I though it was pretty clear that the discussion was between me and Mathsci, with possible involvment by FS and Johnuniq (whose name I forgot to add)). Concurrently (since Mathsci talk page is protected, I could not modify it to notify him of the DRN), Mathsci filed this dispute here at ANI; putting this on the OB talk page "I have reported you at WP:ANI, Obviously if you don't access to the two main sources that I use to create the content on this article, I cannot see how you can discuss the content of the article in any substantial way." In my opinion, that is besides the point - the issue was never the sources or content directly related to the sources.

Now, as for the discussion here; I won't summarize it, you have it just above for your own eyes to read (and to analyze). Basically, Mathsci accused me of being a sockpuppet, harassing him, disregarding sources (even though, in my opinion, the issues I mentioned didn't need sources) and being generally disruptive (for example, ignoring Johnuniq's proposal to go edit elsewhere, an accusation which, you look at my edits since January 12 [43], is not exactly true). My defense, for all of those points, as can be seen in the comments above, is that they are unfounded, unproven accusations [44] which show signs of Mathsci overreacting. I already excused myself and provided many proposals to resolve this peacefully, including this (at the bottom of the diff) [45]; and this [46]; and this [47];

So here is my final say on this, I hope this will be enough to end this exaggerated dispute which is both my fault and that of Mathsci (albeit probably a lot of the blame falls on me for ignoring (and not knowing about) Mathsci's precedents with FS and getting involved in their grudge)). I excuse myself for the strife this has caused. As I already said, I will refrain from editing OB and it's talk page anymore. I could also prove that the sources I mentioned aren't totally irrelevant (and that some of the information within is actually relevant); but in the spirit of resolving this dispute (again, Mathsci said that I am seeking to anger him, but I do not wish to keep fighting), I will just stop and hope that the dust settles down - that this flame war ends without further harm. I invite Mathsci to answer if he believes that what I wrote is incorrect. Regards, from Canada. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The article is a complex article which is complicated to edit, as a multimedia article with detailed musical commentaries. The IP has shown no interest at all in the content. He doesn't want to look at the sources. And he has made comments on the talk page which are completely tangential to the article. He has drawn attention to complete trivia (e.g. that Catherine Winkworth is linked several times). Softlavender has given her dispassionate opinion of all of this. Everything that she has written is 100% spot on. She has been very astute and perceptive. Likewise Johnuniq. The IP should address their comments. I agree with them. I have no specific comments on the above wall of text, except that it is tl;dr. Mathsci (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Removing [[ and </> ]] is not complicated, no matter what kind of article it is. Per the page you cite "Substituting a flippant "tl;dr" for reasoned response and cordiality stoops to ridicule and amounts to thought-terminating cliché. Just as one cannot prove through verbosity, neither can one prove by wielding a four letter acronym. When illumination, patience, and wisdom are called for, answer with them." If this is all you have to say, well then no further bad feelings. I will stop here, as I said in my "wall of text". I've seen enough, I don't have time to spend battling out over some stupid edit on Wikipedia with which you happen to disagree, I've got a life and work to do. THIS DISCUSSION CAN HEREBY BE CONSIDERED OVER. Regards, again, from Canada. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keeping this open, as the IP has returned to Talk:Orgelbüchlein. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive Editor on Ethiopia related pages

EthiopianHabesha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The User:EthiopianHabesha is being disruptive on multiple pages related to Ethiopia. I was advised to take this issue to ANI at the COI board [48] He wants to censor material that portrays Abyssinians in a negative light and just recently blanked reliable sources, added by another user [49] Previous dispute resolution attempts have failed due to users nationalisic outbursts and difficulty with the english language [50]. He also made what appears to be threats of nationalistic violence on a users talk page [51] Can something be done about this user. Duqsene (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that I have found this editor to be problematic. I don't know whether the issue is primarily one of nationalistic combativeness or primarily one of lack of competence in English, although I see aspects of both, and which doesn't really matter. This editor attempted to state a case at the dispute resolution noticeboard, but was unable to state a case that volunteers could work with. As noted, this is not a conflict of interest issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Duqsene, in COI I explained clearly, that what you have accused me of saying "Amhara people do not exist" is not actually what I have said [52][53][54]. In that noticeboard you did not provide one diffs to support your claim of me saying "Amhara People do not exist" yet you dedicated that section, based on a false accusation, to explain how Oromos are oppressed by Amhara nationalist[55]. Not that it matters, I do not even belong to Amhara neither Tigray ethinicgroup. Anyways, I am very sorry Robert McClenon did not comment about this clear false accusation. And also I have been accused of "nationalistic outburst", another accusation that is not explained clearly i.e. not supported by diffs and explained to me clearly for which nationalistic group (that the accuser can define it) am being accused of defending for. @Admins, most of my arguments deal with presenting contents in an impartial tone per WP:IMPARTIAL, and to convince the editors to comply with this rule then I had to make a long arguments with these editors whom had several sockpuppets used to disrupt Ethiopia related articles. Some of the sockpuppets I used to argue with that are now blocked includes Otakrem,Zekenyan and Blizzio and also some other IP sockpuppets. Although some try to convince their POV that does not make sense by bullying and intimidation I prefer to convince them by bringing neutral reliable sources, although neutrality of sources is not necessary, so that we edit collaboratively and by consensus. Finally, please note that I have a hard time to reach consensus with Duqsene on the article Sultanate of Showa [56][57]. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't entirely understand. However, whether we can understand each other is part of the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, with respect what I was saying is: Duqsene in COI opened a section [58] claiming I have said "Amhara people do not exist" when I said it is not possible for Kingdom of Aksum (also known as Abyssinian Kingdom [59]) and Dʿmt to be ruled by Amharic Speakers because no linguist claimed for Amharic to exist before 1,000 AD. With respect please see Ethiopian semitic languages. Since no comment from you on this false accusation by Duqsene then I took it you also assumed I have said that and was wondering if you could please provide diffs. I will be very happy if we could focus on the content presented and there is no way I will accept Duqsene's argument if he could be able to provide one source, even if unreliable, showing me that Axum kingdom (Abyssinian kingdom) was ruled by Amharic speaking people also showing that the Abyssinian inhabitants of Axum kingdom spoke Amharic. That was what I was saying and I hope now it is clear. Thank you. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I still don't understand. It appears that the subject editor is angry that another editor said something that I can't find evidence that they said. Arguing over words that were not said is disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, as @Robert McClenon notes, we have a problematic editor. @EthiopianHabesha either does not understand wikipedia policies or interprets it from a particular point of view. Some evidence of disruptive behavior of EthiopianHabesha in Ethiopia-related articles since November 2016:

• Slow editwarring to remove sourced content and WP:RS, to restore unsourced content: 1 2 3 4. See @Doug Weller's intervention and edit summary.
• @EthiopianHabesha misrepresents or misunderstands then repeatedly invokes WP:ONUS, WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:QS, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:BURDEN etc in order to remove reliable sources published by Cambridge University Press etc sources, with the comment, "choosing sources you have to be carefull [sic] because there are also writers who write for their own agenda such as for ethnic nationalism, secionism [sic], advocacy, propaganda, divide and rule". EthiopianHabesha has invoked these policies disruptively and to support above edit warring: 5 e.g.
• Arguing in circles while ignoring wikipedia content policies. See this question to @EthiopianHabesha by @Doug Weller, non-responsive was the response of EthiopianHabesha.
• Insists that they understand policies and know how wikipedia works, nevertheless: 6
• Puzzling hints on my talk page on "fit for fighting"

Outside of Doug Weller's attempts to explain wiki policies patiently since November 2016, we have had a DRN case too with @EthiopianHabesha. No progress at or after DRN despite Robert McClenon's efforts. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The editor exhausted my patience and time and I had to give up. His invocation of our acryonyms suggests to me that he is using them as tools without fully understanding them, which might be a competence issue. Doug Weller talk 19:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to concur with User:Ms Sarah Welch and User:Doug Weller that this editor has some sort of a competency problem, probably having to do with limited English, and that they should be advised to edit the Wikipedia in their first language, and that they need to be indefinitely blocked from editing the English Wikipedia because they have shown that they can't contribute constructively (even though we assume that they want to contribute constructively). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

My limited involvement with this editor tends to support Robert McClenon's view. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Admins, please see the article I recently expanded and balanced: Ifat Sultanate article before it looks like this and now it looks like this. Here is the edit history. After the article is balanced, stories from all sides are presented and I beleive people were able to know new sourced information that they never known before. Based on my knowledge information disseminated by extrimists dominate while infromations disseminated by moderates and relevant experts on the topic which are written by highly educated neutral intellectuals who do not write for any agendas are usually avoided because their information is against extremists agendas. I am not defending any nationalistic group but here only just to let know wikipedia readers that there is also another information exists by sourcing contents based on wikipedia rule. If there are no editors who balances articles then wikipedia is likely going to be a tool used by editors who keeps on removing sourced contents which were added to balance views held by extremists. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@EthiopianHabesha: You have expanded the Ifat Sultanate article, but it suffers from the concerns Robert McClenon has mentioned to you several times over the last few months. I am delighted you added sources. But, the summary you added with this edit, for example, is not a faithful summary of pages 42-45 of the source, it is POV-y. It does not fairly or accurately summarize Pankhurst, rather your summary seems to filter out and reflect your concern above, "information disseminated by extrimists [sic] dominate while (...)". That is the persistent problem. The evidence repeatedly suggests that your aims here are not to build an encyclopedia according to community agreed content guidelines, but to fight and censor whatever bothers you by invoking acronyms such as WP:IMPARTIAL, etc. That you exhausted Doug Weller's patience, one of the most patient admins and policy-experienced contributors we have, is not a good sign. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, it would have been helpful if you could indicate the sentence you were talking about. I guess what you are talking about was the sentence begining with "Ifat was finally defeated by Emperor.....". Please see and it was added by other editors and was sourced with "The Glorious Victories, p. 107". The last paragraph was also added by other editors. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I meant the whole thing you added. See the link above. I have started cleaning up the copyvio, use of a source which copied wikipedia (which you did not add), etc. This is not that article's talk page. So let us skip it. It is irrelevant to the OP case filed by @Duqsene, or the issues raised above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@EthiopianHabesha, you have said you want a "balanced" article several times on multiple pages, however your edits prove the opposite. This addition by you, which was corrected by Sarah, misinterpreted the citation to put the blame on Egyptians rather then Ethiopians/Amda Seyon. [60] Do you prefer it to be balanced only when Abyssinians are represented in a negative light? Duqsene (talk) 09:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Admins please please please save the Ifat sultanate article from being used to attack me. The recent edit made by Ms Sarah is just to prove my work is bad and now the scholars work is being paraphrased out of context. Out of the many, let me just explain one of them. When the source said the conflict was precipitated by the Egyptian Sultan (by encouraging the Sultan of Ifat to seize the envoy of emperor Amde Tsion, while on his return from Egypt after giving a letter containing a threat) as can be seen here, in the article Ms Sarah added "it was triggered by Amda Seyon I" as can be seen here (the second sentence under "Conflict with Christians" section). Ms Sarah again ignored the most important part of the letter sent to the Egyptian sultan saying Amde Tsion will "tamper the Nile" if he does not stop perscuting the Christians of Egypt as can be seen here, and this is not included but only the threat on neighbouring muslims (which I think is not the primary concern for Egypt) is included when tampering the Nile is the primary concern of Egypt (based on the scholars opinion) since without Nile there are no Egyptian people. This very important part of the letter was deliberately ignored by MS Sarah simply to show my work is bad, and if user is trying to improve the article then how is it fair to ignore this?

With respect, Ms Sarah Welch can you please clarify on:

1)Why you said "it was triggered by Amda Seyon I" when the scholar said it was precipitated by the Egyptian Sultan, contorary to this?

2)Why not include the primary concern for Egypt, tampering with the Nile, as explained in the source here and why make it look like as if the Egyptian Sultan is very much concerned with muslims of Ethiopia than the Egyptian people who can not live without Nile?

If there are no editors pointing out this kind of clear issues and debating with MS Sarah to convince one another then I am realy worried how Wikipedia articles are going to be. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha and Duqsene: I just started working on that article, am not done (EthiopianHabesha: please check the source again). If you have concerns, let us start a discussion on the article's talk page. This is not the right forum to begin discussing that article, by either of you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, the one I quoted was from your work finalised yesterday on 16 January and still today it is the same [61]. With respect, I think why did that is deliberately but not because you did not finalised editing that part. Thanks, EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, the source said "Fear that the Ethiopians might tamper with the Nile was nevertheless to remain with Egyptians for many centuries"[62] clearly indicating that the Egyptian Sultan (who precipitated the conflict between the Christians and Muslims) was also worried this might be a reality, eventhough in todays scholars opinion Ethiopia did not have that technological capacity at that time. Why not also include this quotation in the inline citation which is just added today? — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I will explain here, and let us discuss it further there please. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

I hesitate in supporting an indef ban for EthiopianHabesha, but something needs to be done given their conflicts with Duqsene and many others over many months. Perhaps we can start with a 3 month block from wikipedia, and 12 months sanction from Ethiopia-Somalia-Horn of Africa space articles, or something reasonable, and let the articles in this conflict-prone space to evolve. Perhaps we should also start an arb process, and add Ethiopia-Somalia-Yemen-Horn of Africa space articles under WP:ACDS. @EthiopianHabesha: Please do consider Robert McClenon's suggestion that you consider contributing to wikipedia articles in another language. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with User:Ms Sarah Welch who recommends a time-limited block. I will point out that indefinite does not equal infinite, and will state that, in my opinion, an indefinite block is needed, that is, a block that continues until the subject editor can compose an unblock request on their talk page, in English, that can be understood as showing that they understand that the original block was for both poor English and combativeness. If we only give this editor a three-month block, it may be no different when they come off block. If we give them an indefinite block, and they request an unblock in good Commonwealth English in two weeks, that is even better (although I am not optimistic). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It might not be unreasonable to perhaps suggest to the editor that he seek some form of mentorship, preferably from someone who might know whichever language he is most familiar with, Ethiopian, Ge-ez, or whatever it is. John Carter (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to any form of mentorship for this editor if the editor will agree to it. I will be satisfied if the mentor writes the unblock request and states the terms of the mentorship, as long as the unblock request is in what the community here considers to be standard written English. Unfortunately, I have found that combative who have a problem with their English are also combative about insisting that their English is good. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no objections to these proposals. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards User:Robert McClenon's suggestion to block the user indefinitely. I feel User:Ms Sarah Welch's proposal of a time limit block will bring us back here, as the user still seems oblivious to his disruptive editing. Mentorship is a good idea, granted with a clause of strict following. Duqsene (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I support User:Robert McClenon's proposal to block the user indefinitely. JimRenge (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Inserting comment to prevent automatic archival. I think that different editors have different views as to how to deal with this editor, but I don't think that anyone just wants this thread archived without action. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

CommentLooking at this User's history, User has had prior Block. Has had Wall of Text debates with other users. Has edit warred(continues to do so in slow form now). In his wall of texts argues and throws much conjecture and/or threats of ethnic violence due to wikipedia edits. Fights tooth and nail to structure articles to his ethno-nationalist POV. There is more than just a language "barrier" here, there seems a consistent pattern of behaviour of as Robert McClenon noted of ""angry ethnonationalist editor" and "combativeness" (not a Direct Quote of Robert). These articles on the Horn of Africa will not get better if we permit such behaviour to continue not only with this user but the others who have participated in this wikipedia version of "ethnonationalism conflict".HarryDirty (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

HarryDirty, just want to let you know that the last time I got blocked I was dealing with a user who had several sockpuppets and was using them to edit war Zekenyan and Blizzio but still I did not pass the 3 revert rule in 24 hours. After a long discussion with the user in the articles talkpage user finally agreed to include the content [63] that he intially opposed. Also I have been dealing with other users such as Otakrem and Pulheec who had several sockpuppets and use them for advocacy against what they call "Amhara and Tigray domination". I use reliable sources (almost all written by neutral writers) from relevant experts to convince them, if possible, and make sure wikipedia articles are balanced and are written with an impartial tone. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment - user HarryDirty got blocked today [64][65] because user is a sockpuppet of Otakrem whom I used to have long arguments in the past. If there are no editors who watches and deal with these kind of editors (here to advocate) then it's likely they will come back and remove or add and disappear (In few days HarryDirty already has removed a lot of sourced contents [66]). Wikipedia needs editors from this region and one that knows the people, history and politics of Horn of Africa very well. When MS Sarah said "the conflict was triggered by Amda Sion" [67][68] contrary to what the scholar said [69], and when Ms Sarah left out one important part of the letter containing a threat (tampering with the Nile) [70] no other editor complained and if I did not, it's most likely readers would have got inaccurate information. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I concur with JimRenge, Robert McClenon etc recommendation of a block. Unless admins have additional clarifying questions, it may be time to wrap this up, one way or other, and close this out. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Relationship to other active cases

There is a related ARB case that just been filed by an editor who registered their account few days ago, on January 10 2017. EthiopianHabesha is one of the named parties. I am not sure if that ARB case will get accepted, how or if it impacts this case, but FWIW. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I've just had a quick look at that case (which has now been declined) and it seems quite complicated (I don't understand what the supposed libel issue is, for instance), so apologies if I have the wrong end of the stick, but the claims being made about the applicability of BLP policy to large groups are reminiscent of a now topic-banned editor, Middayexpress, who used to make similar claims in this area. Robert McClenon might well remember the Middayexpress case, but for others, the final AN/I discussion that resulted in the topic ban is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive887#WP:NPA breech following NPOV, THIRDPARTY breeches. Middayexpress eventually quit Wikipedia promising to recruit new editors from the Horn of Africa to carry on their work. Given the similarity of some of the arguments being made in this case to those employed by Middayexpress, it might be worth investigating possible links further. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Not again!?! The Horn of Africa has been an area of battleground nationalistic editing for a long time. Unlike some other real war zones, it hasn’t gone to the ArbCom to have ArbCom discretionary sanctions imposed. However, I urge the community to deal with this particular combative English-challenged editor (EthiopianHabesha) without regard to other combative editors. (By the way, the ArbCom case hasn't been declined; it is still in the process of being declined.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sorry - I'm not familiar with how ArbCom works, and took an editor's opinion that the case should be declined as a statement that it had been declined. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Long term disruption from anon using 108.65..., 108.66..., 99.101...

An editor using IPs (with some repetition over time) has been vandalizing, trolling and, when blocked, evading blocks. The user tends to latch on to a few ideas for some time before shifting focus. Past and current interests have been Vi Hart, Q*bert, penis size (in various articles), Wikipedia:Wikipediholism test, claims that various things are banned or illegal (dominoes, numerous common numbers, Tetris), etc. While roughly 3/4 of their edits are or seem to be constructive (often dealing with geometry, coding and such), the rest are either unequivocally vandalism and/or trolling or indicate a WP:CIR problem. In the past two years, they have been blocked at least 20 times and evaded most of those blocks immediately. Has this been a registered account, they would have been indefed quite some time ago.

Vandalism, trolling or CIR, etc.: Special:Contributions/108.66.234.192, [[71]], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92] (see also Talk:Tetris#Legality), [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], etc.

Known prior blocks withing the past two years: 99.101.126.233, 108.71.122.12, 99.106.226.107, 99.104.4.100, 108.65.83.165, 99.101.126.89, 99.101.127.31, 108.66.234.192, 99.101.114.58, 99.101.112.238, 108.71.122.41, 108.71.120.222, 108.71.121.129, 108.71.120.43, 108.65.83.222, 108.65.81.159, 108.66.234.227, 108.65.81.68, 108.65.81.68.

Though the user's IP changes frequently, it is sometimes kept for a few days. I have identified roughly 100 IPs used over two years with perhaps a dozen of them being used in two time frames separated by several months. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

As the editor has been responding (though not constructively) on one of the IP talk pages, I have notified them of the discussion there.

While this is obviously a dynamic IP (often "helped" along to avoid a block), the reuse of several of the IPs and apparent rarity of other editors on those IPs seems to indicate there would be limited collateral damage from a range block. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I took a look at User:SummerPhDv2.0/Wikipediholism trolling. It looks like the recent IP addresses used are:

• 108.65.80.0/22
• 108.66.232.0/22
• 108.71.120.0/22

There are also some older ones. On 99.101.112.0/22, the last activity seems to be around October 2016 in this edit. 99.104.4.0/22 and 99.106.224.0/22 don't seem to have any recent activity in the past year. I think a range block is doable on the first three. Most of the edits on these ranges fit the profile of someone obsessed with Wikipediholism, dominoes, Tetris, and penises. However, I'd feel better if someone double-checked my work. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I did not necessarily make some of these edits. 108.66.233.174 (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I assume the Genghis Khan, Motion picture content rating system, and UTF-32 stuff is also you? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

You did "not necessarily" make them? A number of your comments seem to be carefully constructed. Rather than saying you were not blocked and that you did not evade blocks, you stated that IPs are sometimes incorrectly accused of socking. Please state unequivocally which edits, if any, you did not make. Otherwise, it would seem that all of the vandalism shown is yours. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

What I mean is that I did not make some of those edits. This leads to confusion, and we can't tell whether to block or not. 108.66.233.174 (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

You still have not answered the question. Which of the forty or so edits identified as vandalism above, if any, are you saying you did not make? (I assure you there are at least a hundred more, with a tiny sampling linked from User:SummerPhDv2.0/Wikipediholism_trolling.)

You also did not answer NinjaRobotPirate's question: is the Genghis Khan, Motion picture content rating system, and UTF-32 stuff also you?

Also, while this discussion continues, please stop adding "information" based on your obsession with penis size.[114] As there are significant questions regarding your truthfulness, I will continue to revert any and all unsourced edits. Grayfell seems to be following similar thinking. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I did not make the edits referring to geometry or coding. 108.71.121.28 (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The edits under Special:Contributions/108.71.120.43, Special:Contributions/108.66.233.169, Special:Contributions/108.71.120.245, Special:Contributions/108.71.123.175, Special:Contributions/108.71.120.222, Special:Contributions/108.65.81.159, Special:Contributions/108.65.82.240 and numerous others strongly suggest that you really aren't very good at lying. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Alright, since the disruption seems to continue (including edit warring to blank an article), and nobody has objected, I'm going to do the three range blocks above. Because there are some constructive edits coming from this range occasionally, I'll start off short – just two weeks, which I think is lenient given the long-term trolling. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Dispute with Lx 121 on Talk:Atrocities in the Congo Free State

Starting in mid-December, Lx 121 has raised a number of complaints on the talk page of Atrocities in the Congo Free State (a Good Article since September 2016). Initially, he/she claimed that the nationality of cited historians should be highlighted in the article but has widened the dispute to a dozen aspects of the article which he/she considers "bullshit". When some of the demonstrably false claims made are disproved (the absence of Congolese historians) he/she merely changes his/her argument. At the start of the dispute, he/she began to accuse me of "pushing an agenda" attempting "to minimize negative coverage of the belgian colonisers". On 28 December, he/she wrote:

i'm [sic] getting just a little bit TIRED of piron REPEATEDLY misrepresenting & ignoring points raised in this discussion.

& @ this point the only agf-reason left to explain the user's doing so is to assume that the user is having some problem with the reading & comprehension of the text? or maybe i [sic] can be "charitable" & pretend that biron [sic] was just reading too quickly? but that really is the last thread of agf here.

otherwise, it appears to be a deliberate tactic by the user, to obfuscate the matters being discussed.

When other users became involved in the discussion at my request, Lx ignored their comments. In his most recent comment (14 Jan), Lx wrote: "if this article was about nazi atrocities in ww2, instead of belgian colonies in the congo, you would be shut down as a holocaust denier/minimizer by now", effectively accusing me of being a negationist as a result of being personally "pro-Belgian". Instead of seeking consensus or responding to the other comments by other users, Lx writes "your sheer, impenetrable, {wikt|intransigence} [sic] has exhausted any reasonable agf here." Lx's comments are often quite incoherent streams of consciousness and seem to be becoming increasingly so as the discussion progresses. They are also becoming increasingly belligerent. Lx apparently has a history of similar confrontations in other topics, most recently in December. I had hoped that more users would comment in the discussion but, unfortunately, WikiProject Democratic Republic of the Congo has few active users and so the discussion has become increasingly confrontational. I have been editing on Wikipedia for several years and I have never seen personal attacks of this genre before. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I really have a hard time understanding

how a user can edit Wikipedia for ten years

and still somehow think it's appropriate

to separate nearly every clause in a comment

by a paragraph break

at times making a comment a page or more long

and rendering them barely readable. TimothyJosephWood 13:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

That gives me an idea. Let's require all ANI posts to be haiku from now on. EEng 14:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Ugh. That's the worst I've seen since Enkyo2 (talk · contribs) (don't ask what reminded me of him). If Lx 121 doesn't explain himself and, more importantly, cut it out, he should be blocked (unless it can be demonstrated that this is localized to one article, topic are or dispute with one user, but that really seems unlikely). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

ok clarification please? are we criticizing me for my style of writing comments? or for my actions?

as regards my actions: i have VERY carefully avoided any remarks about this editeor as a person.

i don't care about this editor "as a person"; what i care about is the quality of the work.

& to put it very bluntly, after a very long, & fruitless "agf" on its talk page, this editor has written an apologist piece of shit.

the author has gone out of his way to minimise, to downplay, to reduce casualty estimates, to euphemise, & to excuse & deny belgian responsibility for any of the actions.

the author has cherrypicked their sources, & been highly selective in the material to use, even from thse sources; & ALL of it has been in the direction of downplaying the severity, & belgian/european colonial responsibility.

AND the author has reverted multiple other editors who attempted to revise the text.

over the course of several weeks of interaction this editor has been COMPLETELY INTRANSIGENT & absolutely 'impenetrable to any alterations to their text.

i'm going to rfc it, & aside from continuing to add sources, i'm walking away.

if anybody wants to suggest we delete the article, or merge it back into the main (since, in its present form, it has VERY little of substance to add to the subject) count me as a "yes" vote.

if anybody wants to nominate this piece of crap for "featured" (or for "promotion"); count me as "roflmao"

Lx 121 (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

ALSO: the "complaining" user has misrepresented my position on the article.

from the start i stated that i found the article was nnpov. the lack of congolese sources was one of my objections; it was not the only one. i also objected, from the start, to this user's actions in reverting every change made to the tone of the text, by any editor, on the flimsiest rationales.

since the user posted this here, they have again reverted. this time the "objectionable material" was a period photograph of mutilated congolese children. which, contrary to the claims made by the user, was not part of the "disputed" content, & should have been a non-controvertial change & improvement, IF we assume this user is "acting in good faith". dif link pending Lx 121 (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

& here we go, this is the "good faith" edit reverting the lede photo from period documentation of mutilated congolese children, to belgian king leo; & completely removing the historical image from the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free_State&type=revision&diff=760164968&oldid=760099974

because, apparently any change to the article is now to be "disputed" by this editor; especially anything that might alter the carefully-contsructed tone of their coverage. Lx 121 (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

final point -- in response to the original editor's claims, i have not "ignored" other editor's comments. i have, in fact, responded to each of them. & i have spent a very long time responding to piron, & a VERY large amount of patience & "agf" on this.

the editor was ALREADY behaving intransigently when i arrived on the article, weeks ago, & has continued to do so.

the editor has repeatedly mis-represented or "cherrypicked" from my stated positions in the dispute, & continues to do so.

tl;dr - i am all out of "agf" for this person; at least as far as their action on this particular article go.

Lx 121 (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Your communication style of bolding, italicizing, use of ALL CAPS, and combinations of the three is not helping your cause. The above demonstrates just how disruptive it is, and combined with your belligerence and general intransigence I'm leaning towards a block. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

*comment -- so, you are saying, in effect, that "you want to block me because you don't like how i write my comments in discussions"?

as opposed to actually considering the MERITS of my arguement.

well, if that is really where the "wikipedia community" is at, not to mention "WP"/rules, & IF you can make that decision stick through through review, then i don't need to be here ^__^ Lx 121 (talk) 08:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

BTW -- i don't know what peculiar device, or browser you are using to view this; but i'm using firefox with absolutely "plain vanillia" 100% html-compliance.

& on my screen, spacing & selective use of bold & capitals looks a hell of a lot more readable, than "blocks o' text".

so is this really a matter of legibility? or is this about "preferences" of style & "wp:i don't like this"? setting aside, for a moment, the point that the MOS is written for the article-space & we are deep into editor-land here. Lx 121 (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It's a matter of legibility as well as a general battleground approach to collaboration, combined with decidedly less than civil interactions. If you fail to see the problem in your above response that only strengthens my view. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

No, it's simple legibility. It makes your comments very hard to read, especially as they're in a ranting style to begin with. Please make your comments in normal paragraphs, without the excessive use of capitals, bold and italics, and please try to use capitalisation. It's a simple competence issue. Coupled with stuff like "this editor has written an apologist piece of shit" and "if anybody wants to nominate this piece of crap.." makes me think that you are not particularly interested in collaborative editing, which generally makes me consider a block. Black Kite (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think Lx's attitude to the repeated (and polite) requests of several users to change the layout of comments rather symbolises his/her wider attitude towards collaboration on Wikipedia. The same day that Lx left his/her last comment on this page, he/she opened up a Request for Comment discussion on the article which, to me, looks like blatant FORUMSHOPPING. The comments on this review repeat the same attack on me as well as this comment: "i'm [sic] done; i [sic] am out of time, out of patience, & out of "agf" for this person. the article is crap, & i [sic] would vote to delete it, "merge" it back into the main c.f.s. article anytime. it [sic] adds nothing to the coverage already there."

I'm afraid I think this is just another example of how Lx is not listening to the comments on this discussion and on the article's talk page. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

As one of the participants in the original discussion, I'm afraid I must second Brigade Piron's opinion. Lx hasn't been nearly as belligerent with me as they have been with Piron, but they have nevertheless not responded positively or courteously to my comments. Their behavoir is not indicitive of a desire to collaborate, as I see it. I made suggestions on 29 December to which Lx did not respond, in spite of other Wikipedia activity. I then proposed that the discussion be closed, as they had not substantiated their argument and no one else was seriously contesting the article's neutrality. Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) supported this action, but only then did Lx respond, bringing up the German article on the same subject as evidence that other sources and material existed that should've been used. Prion then refuted the German Wikipedia page's reliability and that of its sources at which point the Holocaust denier remark was made by Lx towards Piron. Lx also then listed the Spanish and French Wikipedia articles on the Congo Free State as evidence for their argument. Shortly after the formal complaint was made before this board by Piron, I responded at length to Lx, agreeing with Piron's findings on the German Wikipedia and finding the two other Wikipedia's to be most unsuitable. Lx stated that I "didn't read carefully enough" and emphasized their older points. They also then took the time to make assertions about Piron's "intransigent" attitude. They also accused Piron of reverting their addition of a new photo to the article, attributing it to said "intransigent" attitude. Prion had in fact made this rversion as it had been stated at the beginning of the dispute that both Prion and Lx would refrain from editing while a discussion was ongoing (granted, I don't know if Lx ever agreed to the provision). I clarified my critiques on the "sources" Lx suggested and then reiterated the reason behind Piron's reversion. I asked Lx to "please refer to a specific source you think we can use?" that "1) discuss[es] the atrocities and 2) [is] reliable?" It doesn't appear Lx has been on Wikipedia since then, so I'm still waiting for a response. In the event one doesn't come, I would ask that the admins just offer their consensus in closing the dispute (or whatever their honest opinion on the matter is). I ask this because I'm afraid that like last time Lx will only show up to halt a cloture with more unfounded argument. My main concern is the article at hand, so I think that might be the best way of handling the local problem. As for the larger problem at hand, Lx's behavior, I can only say that I'm very discouraged by what I've seen -Indy beetle (talk) 07:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Like Indy beetle I came to this debate as a neutral third party. While I have always remained open to Lx's suggestions as to how the article could be improved (and continue to remain open to them), Lx's behaviour (toward Piron in particular) is far beyond the pale. In my view, a ban would be the obvious course of action, at the very least one that stops Lx editing Congolese-themed articles and their Talk Pages. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit war over failed verification

at Kingsley C. Dassanaike. I've fully protected for now, but don't have time to look into the failed verification. Is a BLP. Samsara 14:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there a reason why people feel the need to pound the revert button and calling other editors liars in edit summaries? I've never seen such a procedure resolve a dispute. I also don't see the information in the supposed source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wow, I've gone years without coming here, now I seem to be a regular visitor. You guys are swell and all, but I hope not to visit again for a while. My part is that the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingsley C. Dassanayake, closed and reopened, survived with clear consensus despite being put up for speedy within an hour of its creation, rather incessant tagbombing by Obi2canibe, and when those tags were addressed, tagbombing some more, and removal of information claimed by Obi2canibe to be what was lacking in the article. Now that it has survived, Obi2canibe is still being disruptive by tagging things like birthdate and place of birth, added by Sri Lankan editors. Sure it needs more sources, but tagging the article isn't going to fix anything, and based on his behavior through the debate, these are tags for sore-losing. If the community decides tags on every detail in the article are necessary, I will accept that from uninvolved editors, but from him it's a case of Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• [115] put up for speedy within an hour of its creation

To answer Jo-Jo Eumerus, there's a difference between editors who occasionally find themselves having to delete an article and those who revel in deletion. A look at their edit history will tell you which type is which. So, I'm one of those "people feel the need" because I have seen enough of these deletionists to have no more kindness or patience for them. Deletion is sometimes necessary, it should not be the first handy recourse for anyone edits Wikipedia.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo, do you dispute Obi2canibe's assertion that there is unsourced information in Kingsley C. Dassanaike; in particular, that there is information claimed to be in a given source which is in fact not there? Mackensen (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Mackensen, I dispute that tagbombing minutiae solves anything, especially from an editor who's been trying to delete the thing from step 1. Several editors put up both the place and date of birth, and a quick search of the Bronze Wolf list will show him as the only Sri Lankan, pointed out to me by Lankan Scouters who I have been in the process of getting sources from. I left his valid tag about the Braille-even in the AfD it was agreed that needs a better source, and I have written to the Ceylon School for the Deaf & Blind and the descendant org for the World Council for the Welfare of the Blind, no answer yet to either request. Somewhere in all the mess, (and it was an ugly AfD), the sources got scrambled and the proper cite for that "information claimed to be in a given source" should actually be --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

References

I take that as a no, you don't dispute it. Mackensen (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mackensen:, my position is a bit more nuanced than the simplistic binary "dispute/don't dispute", whatever point you're trying to wring out of my answer.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kintetsubuffalo: Are you now admitting that the content wasn't referenced? If so, please retract all the instances where you've accused me of lying (1, 2, 3, 4). I and other editors can't read your mind - how are we to know that "the sources got scrambled"?

You need to WP:AGF and not assume that anyone who challenges you is involved in a grand conspiracy against the scouting movement. The only reason that I even knew of this article was because of your posting on WP:LK which I follow. When someone challenges you don't go into WP:BATTLEGROUND and blindly revert, assigning motives to their actions and using abusive language in edit summaries (1, 2, 3, 4). Step back and check your contributions - no one is perfect, everyone makes mistakes.

I cannot verify the Ameresekere source but I shall WP:AGF and that it contains Dassanaike's date/place of birth and says that he was chairman of the Extension Scout Committee for handicapped Scouts of the World Organization of the Scout Movement. As an experienced editor you should know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source and we can't use List of recipients of the Bronze Wolf Award to verify that Dassanaike is the only Sri Lankan to receive the award. Please get the article unprotected (now, don't wait for the protection to expire in a week) and add the source in the appropriate places.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 16:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: The table in List of recipients of the Bronze Wolf Award is the same as the table at the official site of the World Scout Bureau, as indicated by the first footnote. The official table also says that this person is the only Sri Lankan to receive the award, so I think we can accept that. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Fine.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• If I recall correctly, my first ever interaction with Drmies involved me tagging virtually every sentence in an unsourced article as needing a citation, and him reverting me before helping me fix the problem. He later called my initial act of mass-tagging "a bit POINTy" or something to that effect. Honestly, I think over-tagging, while it does look unattractive in the short term and has no doubt been abused by people who actually were behaving POINTily, is borderline acceptable. If an article lacks sources, tagging it in some fashion is always the right way to go; adding an inline tag at every point where one would expect, ideally, to find a citation is not always the best way to go about it, but it is much clearer than adding a single template to the top of the page, and makes clearing the article up easier, in my opinion. The above That editor won't actually make any effort to fix it, but can rest assured that they've done their encyclopedic duty by sticking on a tag is almost certainly completely out of line; per WP:VOLUNTEER, no one is under any obligation to fix all the problems with any particular article themselves, and tagging (especially with some kind of in-line explanation using the "Reason=" parameter or invisible WP:COMMENTs) is making an effort, however small, to fix it. Removing tags without making any effort to address the underlying issues is inherently disruptive and always much, much worse than any act of mass-tagging. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: would not a simple {{refimprove}} at the top serve the same purpose? My entire objection is and has been Obi2canibe behaving POINTily, i.e. removing information he himself called for in the AFD [116] and replacing a spurious {{Copypaste}} tag to an already-fixed section [117]. Removing is not fixing/"making an effort", and tagging is not fixing/"making an effort" if one has an agenda or bias. Also, "much, much worse"? Really?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I've unprotected the article to allow the discussed constructive changes to be applied. Samsara 03:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I was speaking generally. A simple header would have perhaps been better in the 4+ years ago example I alluded to above, but in this case what you call "tagbombing" consists of four tags. Tagging specific content that is unreferenced or whose reference isn't sufficient is usually preferable to placing a tag at the top of the article that says nothing about exactly what refs need improving. You above complained that nobody knows exactly what the tagging editor was worked up about and how the editor won't actually make any effort to fix it, but now you are complaining about the editor being too specific about what his problem is?

You are edit-warring to remove three "citation needed" tags and one "failed verification" tag because you think think the one "failed verification" tag was inappropriate? You are much closer to violating WP:POINT here than Obi2canibe, from what I'm seeing. Using the edit summary to accuse someone of "lying" (emphasis yours) is inappropriate in general, but if you are calling someone a liar at the expense of explaining 75% of your edit you are way out of line.

Even for the remaining 25% that you did mention in your edit summary, you are wrong to say that the source verifies the content to which it is attached: all the source says is that (1) he is from Sri Lanka, (2) he received a Bronze Wolf Award in 1973; if this has anything whatsoever to do with his serv[ing] as the Chairman of the Extension Scout Committee for handicapped Scouts of the World Organization of the Scout Movement it is not clear to me. Is the award presented to outgoing (or incoming) chairmen of that committee? Nine other people received the award in 1973, so that seems unlikely.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

So on further examination it turned out that Kintetsubuffalo actually agreed with Obi2canibe that the reference failed verification, and replaced it with an offline ref that I can only assume actually verifies the content. This means that the edit-warring was even POINTier than I thought, and the amount of edit-content addressed in Kintetsubuffalo's edit summary was not 25%, but 0%. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

So wait, I thought we now had a ref that covered his DOB and place? Samsara 06:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

What I mean is, if we have such a ref, it can (and should) be marked accordingly in the article. Samsara 06:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Umm... does that discussion belong on ANI? It's one thing if we don't have such a ref and there is an edit war going on over whether the specific lines should be tagged or a large tag should be placed at the top of the article (or if someone is repeatedly claiming that a source that doesn't verify the article content is enough, or is making baseless accusations in edit summaries, or some such), but ...

If the user conduct is off the table at this point then there's no point discussing article content here, and this thread should be closed.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I disagree with your approach here severalfold. Number 1, if there is an issue, let's resolve it and then close the thread, not break it up into a hundred different venues. Number 2, tags per article have only recently somewhat stabilised and remain at a relatively high level. All tag placement does is create a perennial backlog that, unless we change user attitudes, we have little chance of ever addressing. We are so far fortunate that, unlike the German Wikipedia, this problem has not yet spread to the pending changes mechanism, knock on wood. The blanket assertion that tag placement at any level is acceptable, which you've almost argued for, is not a good platform imo. On BLPs particularly, it is sensible to address sourcing issues asap. Assertions about birth place can be controversial and should be supported by a reference if possible. Samsara 07:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Number 1: ANI is not for article content disputes. If there is a user conduct problem here (and I'm not sure if there is or isn't) it's KB's removing maintenance templates that were not inappropriate and referring to three or four such templates as "tagbombing".

Number 2: That may be right as a general point, but in this case a ref was added inline that had no relation to the article content to which it was attached. I wish we could just remove such refs, but there are plenty of people who would edit-war endlessly over it. Tagging is the next best thing. A tag was added, and then removed with the bogus rationale that the source supposedly mentioned the name of the topic. If I speak to your concerns directly, then I can say that the difference between inline tags and header tags is that inline tags are super-easy to address and remove, whereas with a single "refimprove" template there is no way to know exactly what it is referring to and so no conceivable way to fully address the tagger's concern without talk page consensus.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kintetsubuffalo: Looking at this article again, I think my preference would be for the date and place of birth to be omitted unless they can be supported by a reference, and to be re-instated later when a reference has been obtained. Also, the Sinhalese braille claim is supported by two references further down the article - why can these not be used to support the same statement in the lede, rather than leaving the tag there? Samsara 07:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Samsara:If I can <!-- hide them like this --> while seeking verification, I can go with that.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kintetsubuffalo: But why would you want to do that? If someone tagged something in an article I had recently written, and I wasn't able to immediately present them with the source, I would remove it. The one exception would be if it was from a borrowed book or the like, which I could no longer check on short notice, but which I was fairly certain fully verified the content, in which case I would give the name of the source. Normally, I would leave the tag in and visible, and add an <!-- invisible comment --> that clarifies that I probably got the information from a source that I couldn't check on short notice and includes enough bibliographic information that someone else could check it. But if you don't know where the information comes from, then it is unsourced, and has been challenged. Removing or tagging such information is very common, and in line with our core content policy; COMMENTing out the tags so they are only visible to people checking the source is an unusual practice, and frankly I've never seen it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kintetsubuffalo: I think that would be fine. I've made an edit suggestion that I think reflects this discussion. Anyone should feel free to revert if they find any mistake in it. Samsara 11:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Samsara:Beat me too it, I did almost identical edits to yours, thanks!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, sorry about that, :) I wasn't sure if you'd prefer someone else to remove the tags, so I thought I'd do that. Happy editing! Samsara 11:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for your kindness through this!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems that when I add three tags its WP:TAGBOMBING but when Kintetsubuffalo: adds two tags to the same article its OK. Given Kintetsubuffalo's WP:OWNERSHIP of the article and trigger happy reverting who here truly beliefs that he would have allowed me to add Template:Refimprove to the top of the article.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Odd editing behavior at User talk page

StylesClash18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
X!'s Tools for Page: Here

This user has been engaged in strange editing on their User talk page over an extended period of time. There have been several attempts to identify what is going on -- most recently by samtar, to which StylesClash18 removed it indicating there was some sort of issue with the welcome table. Prior to samtar's interaction, there were 27 reverts back and forth of the same content with in 9 minutes. Nick gave the user a warning prior to this, which they responded to again indicating some sort of editing issue with saving edits to the page. Unfortunately, that doesn't add up because to revert an edit, it has to be saved to the page - and reverting the same content back and forth would not change the way it displays.

Overall, the activity began on December 4, 2016 with reverting the same content back and forth. StylesClash18 made 181 edits to their talk page in the month of December 2016, largely reverts. In January 2017 at the time of filing this, StylesClash18 has made 321 edits to their talk page, which are mostly reverts. The time between reverts is an average of 18 seconds apart as shown on X's Tools. This user has not adequately explained why they are reverting their talk page, specifically the same content, back and forth repeatedly. It almost appears like some sort of bot or script is running. The only thing i've picked up on is that the user always ends with their edit count on an even, round number (ex. 3000, or as it stands currently, 4,550 edits). Outside of their talk page, they've made mostly wrestling related edits, removing, reorganizing and retitling sections with occasional grammatical changes.

WP:OWNTALK states that:

"While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia. User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier. Editors who refuse to use their talk page for these purposes are violating the spirit of the talk page guidelines, and are not acting collaboratively."

I believe the editor is not using their talk page in a manner that complies with that purpose. -- Dane ^talk 00:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Kinda looks like some type of bot testing. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 00:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot policy#Bot usage: [...]

Operation of unapproved bots, or use of approved bots in unapproved ways outside their conditions of operation, is prohibited and may in some cases lead to blocking of the user account and possible sanctions for the operator.

Administrators blocking a user account suspected of operating an unapproved bot or an approved bot in unapproved ways should block indefinitely.

Note that high-speed semi-automated processes may effectively be considered bots in some cases, even if performed by an account used by a human editor. If in doubt, check.

@Mlpearc Phone: Testing what exactly? User has been asked that many times and the user refused to give a fruitful answer. [118] [119] where user instead of giving a fruitful response tells me to leave the talk page. This violates the quote from above. Also mind that per above quote from the official bot policy, making automated edits without approval can be blocked indefinitely. This isn't a one off thing, it has been going on for months now. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 00:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

How the heck am I supose to know, I just said what it looked like and you do not have to qoute policy to me. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 00:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm guessing here, but I think I have an idea what's going on. They're making changes but whenever something doesn't work out the way Styleclash18 expects, they undo the edit. That may seem obvious to us but this user looks like they're thinking of UNDO like CTRL-Z in MS Word. If you click it enough times, it goes backwards to an earlier text change because UNDO keeps a small history of changes. Except, of course, Wiki UNDO just undoes the last edit. So what we're seeing is the Styleclash18 undoing the same edit over and over again whereas they might actually be trying to go back further but not realising that WP is only taking them back by 1 edit. Blackmane (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I may have believed that had it been only a few times, but this is consistent for over a month and the user has said they've "resolved it" several times with no obvious changes to the page other than users questioning it. Also worth noting, the user has confirmed socks: BigRedMonster12 and KOMania16 per this diff which I became aware of after the AN/I post. -- Dane ^talk 02:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mlpearc Phone: I am sorry that wasn't an accusation, rather an observation on top of your observation.

@Dane: Given how the user revert wars with themselves and abruptly stops, there is no real change. They revert far too quickly even for word IMHO. They are also very quick to resolve talk page questions on their conduct. They could be WP:GAMEing the system though at this point I am unsure what is left to game - save for editcountitis for adminship.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 10:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I should mention that they tried to remove this ANI discussion with the reasoning of this: "here is no bot being operated but there have been multiple problems with my talk page. These problems have been solved with assistance from multiple editors". JudgeRM (talk to me) 18:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I left them a final warning. A block for disruptive editing may be in order soon. Bradv 18:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

My initial reaction would be to assume they're attempting to game ECP. Sam Walton (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

To clear the issue up - I have edited the same pages as suspected sock puppets BigRedMonster12 and KOMania16 but I have no relation to these accounts at all. After considering the circumstances, I have decided not to retire but would appreciate other editor's co-operation. Simply, my talk page should be left alone, with no edits conducted by myself or other editors. I apologise for any inconvenience caused but my style of editing may differ to other editors. StylesClash18 19:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

This does not clear up the issue. You still have confirmed sock puppets to you and you may not restrict the usage of your talk page the way you suggested (see the policy above). I have opened a sockpuppet investigation to look for any other socks that have not been declared here. -- Dane ^talk 03:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Since the issue cannot be solved, I am announcing my retirement. StylesClash18 15:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I would note that you would have gotten less flack if you'd used your sandbox, although your editing pattern is probably a bit excessive even for that. As said above, you cannot bar allcomers from your talk page. BTW if you do decide to come back, note that your signature is not compliant with WP:Sig as it lacks any links to your user page, talk page or contributions page. Nil Einne (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

user Planktonium in John de Ruiter artikel

the John de Ruiter artikel is almost the only thing Planktonium endless edits and keeps systematically adding bad changings.

Deleting banner A and Deleting banner B

Adding promotion info: promo 1 and promo 2 and promo 3

Polishing out or deleting reference of lesser positive info f.e.:delete 1 and delete 2 and delete 3

Today Planktonium made already 9 edits, resulting in lots of reference errors on the artikel because of his reference changes. In Teahouse Planktonium accused me of being an litigants (for no reason) and askes to find my ip adres..

Could this user be blocked?

Can the banner he earlier deleted be brought back?

Can a thirth person check if it aint best to put the artikel back on edit-date 00:00, 19 November 2016‎ Zupotachyon?

Thx in advance, Richard Gooi (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

That article is certainly a lovingly crafted advert for a lifestyle guru right now. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

You forgot to add "In naff brown plastic". Jokes aside, I threw out some extremely poorly sourced BLP, read the damn thing and concluded it's WP:PROMO, which leaves us with a SPA engaging in years of promoting this person, which, to my mind results in WP:NOTHERE. Kleuske (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The more I look at this article the worse it looks. I just cleaned up some dead refs... turns out 6 dead references (under 4 different reference numbers) were actually all to the same fawning interview with John deRuiter. I managed to track down a live copy of the translation of the original, now hosted on John deRuiter's website. I'm almost afraid to poke the other references.

It appears to me that Planktonium is doing a bit of white washing here. He or she removed seemingly reliably sourced material with the invalid rationale that the links were no longer valid and has accused Richard Gooi of having a conflict of interest Talk:John_de_Ruiter#Edits. Note that Planktonium is an WP:SPA who has never edited outside of this topic in almost 5 years. Meters (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Meters, your refering to the 6 Brummelman-interview refs which were earlier al correct links on 20:06, 7 October 2016 refering to a tiny article in a Magazine called: "Innerself Issue 27" But Planktonium changed it into dead-link to the Paravision magazine on 19:47, ref meshup 1 with promo and 20:50 of 16 January 2017 ref meshup 2

Planktonium is an SPA and started this artikel, it was almost totally deleted 4 years ago. Richard Gooi (talk) 08:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It appears to me that both the English user page version and the English Innerself version from 2012 are translations of the original Dutch ParaVisie interview from 2010. Thanks for pointing out my error wrt all the links being dead. I've struck that. Meters (talk) 08:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for the report, User:Richard Gooi. You missed alerting the user to this ANI discussion; I've done it for you. The article is a biography of a living person, and those biographies are under ArbCom discretionary sanctions. I could and would have topic banned the user from editing the article, if they had been alerted to the discretionary sanctions for BLPs. I've alerted them now, and if the promotional editing continues, I will ban them. Unless another admin blocks them per WP:NOTHERE first, which would not be unreasonable IMO. Richard Gooi and others, please feel free to re-report here, or simply tell me on my page, if the problematic editing continues and I miss it. Yes, the multiple issues banner can presumably be restored. I'd do it myself, except that I intend to warn the user about a possible topic ban, so I'd rather not get involved with editing the article in any way. Somebody else, perhaps? Guy? Do you think it's sufficiently improved now, so perhaps only the COI tag is needed? Bishonen | talk 10:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC).

At the moment there still some issues that been wite-wahed and some not so clear parts and prome bits, tomorrow I will look into that and cleanup. After that others can say if its okay. Richard Gooi (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Worked on all issues, added two Oxford-scientific-refs. Only wonder if the 4CD-titels are Wikipedia suitable. I understand they are together with 340 more CD's like those for sale on his website. Since i already did some changes on this artikel, i let this decision left to some other editor if the present 4 CD titels should be on Wiki? Richard Gooi (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

User DaveA2424

User DaveA2424 has a history of making Unsourced edits, Admin Oshwah warned them at one point here and their talk page was full of warnings, they cleared it after each warning was issued which can be seen in their history, for adding Unsourced material to the same article that I warned them about and other articles. They were adding Unsourced material to the WWE Hall Of Fame myself and User InFlamester20 warned them here. Dave decided to take it to my talk page instead of the article talk page and make it personal with me which can been seen here in my archives, note they never once went after the other user who warned them, Warnings I issued were via Twinkle. 2 other users LM2000 and NewsAndEventsGuy posted on my talk page to him about his behavior and posting Unsourced material on the article. NewsAndEventsGuy posted here on his talk page about his behavior, Dave ofcourse removed and then went to NewsAndEventsGuys talk here continuing his behavior. I said at that time if it continued ANI would be the next course of action. It has now been almost 2 weeks of no contact with him and suddenly he made it a point to once again bring his childish battlefield mentality to my talk page making no sense whatsoever about removing the conversation, which was archived not removed, and accusing myself and the other users involved of mob mentality and that we would be reported. Dave was then told once again not to post to my talk page with their childish behavior anymore. He then went into my archives and edited the archived conversation here with more childish behavior which as you can see by the history he went into my archives to edit it and post to my talk again and then again here while I was writing this ANI stating "I am perfectly within my rights when editing your archive" which is not true as it clearly states at the top of the archives This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. I was told I should bring it to ANI as Dave clearly has issues with working with others, following policies, and does not get that his behavior is uncalled for and it might be time for an Admin to get involved. In case it is removed, as he has a history of such, user was notified of the ANI here Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 01:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I have seen some of this behavior on wiki but warnings were already issued when I saw it. I fully support an extended or indefinite block for the user due to their inability to work with others (Competence is required) and their battleground mentality. The editing of WarMachineWildThing's archives is also completely inappropriate. -- Dane ^talk 01:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

He's constantly threatened to report others but has been warned enough to know that he's the one on thin ice. Just today he suggested I might be a sockpuppet. The WP:BATTLEGROUND has been nonstop since I first encountered him.[120] LM2000 (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

As expected User removed the ANI notice and replaced it here Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 01:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Edited my archive again here then reverted it here and is posting to my talk page again after being asked not to and after this ANI was filed. Dave clearly has no regards for policy and refuses to stop this behavior or acknowledge this ANI. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 01:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

You clearly haven't viewed my latest Wikipedia interactions seeing as I just agreed to let another user have his/her way in order to avoid an edit war. If the administrators are going to be unprofessional and gang up against me as well, then there's nothing I can really do about that. In my opinion, I haven't done anything wrong here and several users have adopted a mob mentality against me, which I find unfair. I am also surprised that I was not contacted by an administrator to get my side of the story. It is clear that I am working with users who are willing to work with me and not simply team up against me to get their way. Also, I am perfectly within my right to remove topics from my talk page in order to make my page tidier. WarMachineWildThing continues to remove my posts from his talk page so why am I being ridiculed for doing the same? Have a nice day. DaveA2424 (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to state that I was unaware that editing archives was prohibited at first but then I saw the notice and removed my edition and reverted it to his talk page. That much I will apologise for because that was my mistake, but I refuse to be pushed around and teamed up on. If we can come to a peaceful solution or simply drop this then that's fine, but I'm perfectly happy to take this further seeing as I don't believe that I'm in the wrong here. DaveA2424 (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Dave has now left a fake ANI notice on my talk page. As LM2000 has already posted to this ANI how you accused him of being a sock here. You were warned per policy about placing unsourced material by 2 users and you chose to make it personal and continue this behavior, you then came to my talk page with your childish behavior and were asked NOT to post to my talk again and you then continued and then started editing my archives which it clearly states at the top of them is a no no. Nothing you posted was EVER removed it was archived like every other conversation on my talk page. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 01:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by a "fake ANI". Also, I have never called anyone a "sock". The only reason that you didn't want me to post on your talk page is because you didn't want me to have my say on the matter. Some of what I have posted on your talk page has not been archived under the WWE Hall of Fame section of your archive. If you would like to read what I said, I apologised for editing your archives because, at the time, I hadn't seen the notice and was unaware that editing archives wasn't allowed. I owned up to that being my mistake. You seem determined to drag this on further than it needs to be, which is fine by me because, in my opinion, you're way out of line here. I'm going to bed now. Goodnight, gentlemen. DaveA2424 (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

You left an ANI notice on my talk page that was fake, you don't leave ANI notices unless you filed one which you didn't. Again every post you made is in my archive and history nothing was removed it can all be seen, you were asked NOT to post 4 times to my talk page because of your childish behavior and battlefield mentality. You were asked to stop by LM2000 and NewsAndEventsGuy. You were warned per policy for adding unsourced material to an article via twinkle, which your history shows you have been warned about before, and you didn't like it so you then made it personal with me starting with calling me an idiot. You are clearly not here to work with others as you have continued with the same behavior even here on this ANI. You still refuse to acknowledge you have been wrong in this whole situation which shows you don't care. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 02:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

You're mistaken that you need to be the filing party to leave ANI notices. Anyone is free to leave ANI notices if they are appropriate and have not already been left. Since leaving them is a requirement, the filing party is normally the primary person who should leave them, but plenty of people miss the the big warnings or misunderstand them. In addition, some people are concerned over topic bans. In these cases, it's common for someone else to leave them. In addition, it isn't uncommon that a person will bring up the behaviour of another editor in a thread that has already been started. In these cases, if the editor is not already a participant in the thread, leaving them is required rather than just being acceptable. Since you were the person who started this discussion, there was no need to leave an ANI notice relating to it so it probably shouldn't have been done. However that doesn't make it a fake ANI notice. Such a concept doesn't make much sense. I guess you could say an ANI notice is fake if it refers to a non existant thread or if the person has not been mentioned in ANI at all, but that's different and it's still IMO a bit confusing to call them fake ANI notices. Nil Einne (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Typically a man of few words but figured I should add my two cents. I do give credit to DaveA2424 for apologizing regarding editing archived talk pages, however, I have not seen an apology for not adhering to WP:CIVILITY by, among other things, repeatedly calling WarMachineWildThing an 'idiot' without provocation. DaveA2424 blanking his own talk page during ongoing discussions while failing to archive them also seems odd to me. At the risk of giving credence to DaveA2424's belief that everyone is 'ganging up on him', I agree with and support statements made by WarMachineWildThing, Dane and LM2000. InFlamester20 (talk) 03:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

In case it wasn't already obvious, I don't sit on Wikipedia all day, every day. Therefore, there are things that I am new to and am unclear about. I still don't understand why you think that me blanking my talk page is some kind of attempt to cover my trails. It's all there in the history. I am fully aware of that. The only reason that I did it is so that I can easily view unread posts. If that's not something that's usually done then that's fine but the fact that you keep implying that I'm trying to hide something is puzzling to me. I also was unaware that archiving talk pages was even a possibility. The reason that I reacted in the way that I did is that I felt like my efforts to improve the WWE Hall of Fame page were not appreciated as the user simply removed everything that I had spent time on without a care in the world. He then continued to use language such as "warning" me, threatening to report me and so on. If you had been friendlier about this from the start, then none of this would have been an issue. Then, all of his little buddies joined in and started harassing me and backed me into a corner, which I thought was unfair and so I wasn't going to stand for it. Do I recognise that unsourced material isn't allowed? Yes, I do, but I wasn't clear on what exactly needed to be sourced and what didn't. I stopped trying to add Diamond Dallas Page to the 'To Be Inducted In 2017' section after I saw that users had deemed my editions to be unacceptable. Then, when adding Kurt Angle to that section last night, I conceded in a debate with others over which of his WWE Recognised Accolades should be included in order to avoid an edit war. That was because the user politely explained to me their point of view instead of getting a group of his friends together and harassing me like WarMachineWildThing did. At the end of the day, you can do what you like, but to suggest that I'm not willing to work with others and abide by the rules to the best of my ability is laughable. I look forward to seeing which of your friends turns up next to have his say at my expense. DaveA2424 (talk) 09:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

One thing you've got right is that you have the right to delete nearly anything from your own talk page. Just as other editors have the right to do so for their talk pages. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I have no problem with him removing posts from his talk page. What I don't understand is why he ridicules me for doing it and then does it himself. DaveA2424 (talk) 09:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

DaveA2424, WarMachineWildThing - I think you're both getting off-track regarding the original issue that started the dispute between you two (which are the content-related concerns at WWE Hall Of Fame). This back-and-fourth arguing over editing each others' talk pages, removing of content on each others' talk pages, editing each owns' talk pages, etc - are not only over things that are easy to resolve, but are just going to result in the actual issue never getting discussed and the dispute properly resolved.

First of all, it's completely appropriate for an editor to remove warnings, messages, content - whatever they want from their own user talk page. While DaveA2424's style of "marking his user talk page messages as read" isn't the usual way (nor is it generally the preferred way) to handle messages on his talk page, it's completely within his right to do if that's what he wants. While user talk page archives generally shouldn't be edited, it appears that DaveA2424 was unaware of this - can we please give him the benefit of the doubt and move on from this? :-)

Moving on to the root issue at hand... DaveA2424 - You state in your message to WarMachineWildThing that you were eventually going to add references and cite them with this content. If you're adding content to an article and have references that you're going to cite as well, why add the content without also adding the reference with the same edit? Doing so will help with the confusion and frustration that occurred here. I also see in the article's history that other editors have reverted changes you made, expressing different content-related issues and concerns. Have you started or discussed these issues on the article's talk page? While I see on the talk page history here that you've contributed there, I don't see much discussion over all issues at hand, nor does it appear that any of them have come to a consensus. Instead of blowing up at other editors as you've been doing, you need to start discussions or participate in the existing discussions on the article's talk page and make sure the discussions that involve the content you're attempting to add comes to a consensus before you add them back.

Lastly, DaveA2424 - I will note that your collaboration with other editors such as here, here, here, here, here, and here - are not acceptable ways to communicate with others and are in violation of Wikipedia's civility policy, as well as Wikipedia's policies on making personal attacks at others. I understand that you're frustrated and perhaps upset over this dispute, but calling other editors "idiots" (as one example) is not a positive way to resolve the issue at hand. I also don't understand what you mean when you refer to administrators acting unprofessionally, or other editors ganging up on you (as you said here and on other pages). I don't see where other editors and administrators are behaving unprofessionally, nor am I seeing where they're "ganging up" on you or hounding you. The only editor I've seen behave unprofessionally or engage in "hounding" is you. Even when another editor (NewsAndEventsGuy) stepped in to warn you about your civility and your collaborative behavior here, you then started to act uncivil towards him (diff). This also came after the initial response you made on NewsAndEventsGuy's user talk page (here), where you seemed to blame the incivility he warned you about on WarMachineWildThing's initial warnings. While the warnings that WarMachineWildThing left on your user talk page may explain your recent uncivil interactions, it certainly does not excuse them. DaveA2424 - from here on out, you are expected to collaborate with other editors in a civil manner and you are to stop making personal attacks towards other editors. If this behavior continues towards these editors or any other editors involving this issue or dispute, or during the course of this dispute, you will be blocked from editing for incivility.

In the end, everyone needs to shakes hands over the "talk page tit-for-tat" issue that was going on, move the content related discussion to the article's talk page, and come to a resolution peacefully. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I notice that I am the only user that you have ridiculed here. Like I said, if it wasn't for other editors being hostile towards me and ganging up against me then I would not have responded in the way that I did. Your response to me is basically that I can sit here and take their abuse or I can get blocked. That doesn't seem fair to me. Any time that an editor has approached me in a respectful manner about an issue, I have responded in kind. I respect that you're trying to resolve the issue but I still can't help but feel like you're taking sides here. Everyone keeps berating me for things like removing content from my talk page and accidentally omitting parts of an edit before making a follow-up edit to rectify those omissions. Like I said, I'm new to this. I'm still learning, so I think that you could cut me some slack in that regard. If users are respectful towards me, then I will be respectful towards them. It's that simple. With that said, if it helps, I will make a conscious effort to be more patient with those who undo my edits and whatnot, whether they are correct in doing so or not. DaveA2424 (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

DaveA2424 - Can you please provide me with URLs to exact diffs that show me where other editors or administrators have acted unprofessionally or in an uncivil manner towards you? Can you provide me with exact diffs that show "hounding", personal attacks, battleground conduct, or other civility violations from other users? I'd like to take a look at them. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I would love to but, unfortunately, I have no idea how to do what you're talking about. Like I said, I'm relatively new to this. DaveA2424 (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Check the history of a given page, and find the item where a given edit was made, select the (prev) link, then copy-and-past the URL for it. For example, this is the diff for the edit you made immediately above. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The Diff help age will also be of assistance. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC) - See the help page that Bishonen provided below. It's much easier to understand than the one I provided.

Oshwah, I don't understand the Diff help page myself. A new user, as well as most of the rest of us, had much better consult the Simple diff and link guide. Bishonen | talk 23:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC).

Good call Bishonen! Redacted my previous response. The help page you provided will be much better suited for him to read. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

DaveA2424 - Just checking in. Have you managed to review the document that Bishonen provided and locate those diff URLs? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah I have stayed on the point of this ANI which was incivility and continued hounding about this, if Dave would have stopped like he was told by everyone involved we wouldn't be here.I never edited his talk page except to issue warnings.I NEVER went to his talk adding or removing anything . This was not a dispute between 2 users either other editors were involved with his addition of Unsourced content and warned him about it as well, yet he chose to single my talk out. I was never uncivil and told him several times to add the source when he edited which he couldn't because there were none.

Dave no one disrespected you, you were warned per policy for placing unsourced material 3 times by 2 users and you decided to become uncivil to me which you were warned about by 2 other users on my talk and continued the behavior afterwards which lead us here. There was no mob as you have accused as this was the first time I ever had interaction with NewsandEventsguy and InFlamester20. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 15:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Taking what I say and simply arguing the opposite with little to no justification is getting us nowhere. You think that I wasn't disrespected? That's great, but I disagree. You think that there was no mob mentality? Again, that's great, but I disagree. I'm not sure why you're so determined to drag this out. I really don't have time for this childish, back-and-forth nonsense. DaveA2424 (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

My last post on the matter as I'm not wasting anymore time trying to explain this to someone who clearly doesn't get it and refuses to acknowledge their uncivil behavior which is and has been the POINT of this ANI from the beginning and continues to make false accusations. Not one user was uncivil or disrespectful to Dave at any point but he was to others IE: No one called him an Idiot, No one abused him as he has claimed in this ANI, There was no mob mentality and no one ganged up on anyone, No one blew up his talk page with uncivil behavior and being repeatedly told to stop, no user edited his talk page except to issue standard warnings per policies, you violate policies you get a warning IE: adding unsourced material. We've all gotten one at some point. User continues to be uncivil and has a battlefield mentality which each user involved in this ANI has agreed on, the matter was over as far as I was concerned until Dave made it a point to start it up again after almost 2 weeks, hence this ANI. An Admin can handle it from here however they see fit as clearly anything said here by users involved is mob mentality. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 17:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, all that you're doing is taking what I'm saying and stating the opposite, which results in the same childish, back-and-forth nonsense that gets us nowhere. You have been asked repeatedly to drop the talk page conversation in order to focus on issues that are more resolvable and yet you refuse to do so. You feel that I haven't been disrespected and that there hasn't been a mob mentality. I'm not sure what you didn't understand about this when I said it the first time, but I disagree. You can continue to drag this on all you want but we're simply going around in circles here. You're ridiculing me for bringing something up after two weeks but, again, I don't spend hours of every day on Wikipedia like you do so I didn't see you and your friends harassment until two weeks later and I was, quite frankly, appalled to see the kind of mob mentality that I'd expect to see from schoolchildren. DaveA2424 (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

wow, kudos Oshwah for careful review and analysis. I suggest adding "disruption" to the list of Dave's issues and blocking for one week in hope he'll take that time to read the various policies we have been citing. I say 'disruption' because one of the signs of disruption is not answering questions and Dave has been asked for DIFFS showing existence of ganging up on him, disrespecting him, etc. Nadda nope nothing. Instead he continues to tit for tat with the same vaguely cast aspersions. Our WP:Blocking policy states that blocks are only to PREVENT future problems. If a weeks time out to review our policies was ever needed its here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC) LATER (and after Admin Oshwah posted his threaded reply to what I now strike out).... Apologies to DaveA2424 (talk · contribs)... I should have looked at the time of your mid thread comment asking how to post diffs. I now see that was your last post in the thread. Since two earlier posts of yours appear below that remark I assumed they had been made after you were asked for DIFFS. The general guideline is new remarks go below and I lost track. It was my misreading of the chronology that led me to believe there was a continuing problem. My bad, and I'm sorry Dave. A lot of good advice has been made available to all editors in this thread. Those interested in improving the original article can get back to effective work if they act on all this feedback. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy - Thank you for the kudos and for the input. While the evidence shows clear incivility from DaveA2424, as well as a history with being warned for adding unferenced and poorly referenced content to articles, blocking him at this point would not be a preventative measure and would be inappropriate per Wikipedia's blocking policy. So long as the incivility and personal attacks stop, the content dispute/discussion is moved to the article's talk page and remains peaceful and content-related, and no edit warring or other disruption starts to come about, I see no reason to consider any blocks at all. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Which, for the record, it would be reeeeaaallly really nice to not have to use that damn button :-). I hate having to block editors over civility and content-related disruption... especially in situations like this - where two or more editors, who obviously seem passionate about expanding the project and making it better, clash with one another as a result and become frustrated and angry at one another. I try to give 110% into trying to diffuse the situation and help guide those in dispute towards the right direction. Having to resort to blocking, to me, means I've failed at my job... which is to set an example, be the neutral party, show leadership, and diffuse heated situations and help them work things out. If doing so becomes needed as the only option to prevent disruption and allow positive collaboration and consensus-building to resume, I won't hesitate to do so and I won't stray an inch... but it doesn't mean I like doing so... I'd really much rather help them work things out than to have to go that route. :-( ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that as far as I see, the above commenting about diffs follows expected behaviour per WP:Indent. Replies don't always go below all other replies when they are properly indented. Nil Einne (talk) 06:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Soupforone, personal attack and related incidents

Soupforone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

GabiloveAdol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

newly registered editor, previously editing the affected articles as 86.89.46.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

EthiopianHabesha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Related cases:

1. AN/I: User:EthiopianHabesha, Disruptive Editor on Ethiopia related pages (Filer: User:Duqsene)
2. ARC: ARB case (Filer: User:GabiloveAdol)
3. Possibly old cases of @Middayexpress, see the note posted by Cordless Larry today on AN/I here.
4. There is a puzzling comment posted on my talk page in last 24 hours by the newly registered account @GabiloveAdol, that there is or will be a separate case on admin @Buckshot06: somewhere, with "Buckshot06 will also be mentioned in another case". Sorry, I do not know what that case is or will be, and am unable to provide links. Perhaps the admins can ask the affected parties to disclose and consolidate these cases?

Affected articles: Amhara people, Oromo people, Sultanate of Ifat, Somalis, Shirazi people

Behavior/incidents related to @Soupforone

1. Personal attacks: Bigot allegations. The content disputes, which has already involved two admins on the talk pages, and other editors, has escalated to a point where there is a pattern of disruptive behavior by @Soupforone, in tandem with GabiloveAdol and EthiopianHabesha with the latest being an accusation of WP:BIGOT with this personal attack by @Soupforone. The other parts of the discussion can be reviewed here and here. Soupforone just back-edited and posted that their comment "was not intended for EthiopianHabesha or you", but this is strange. The context of the discussion on that page is my edits and the pending ARB case. Even if it somehow was not against me, unsubstantiated WP:BIGOT allegation against anyone in wikipedia is hostile and inappropriate PA.
2. Policy shopping by Soupforone, hoping something will stick. Soupforone sought to delete sourced sections and WP:RS first claiming WP:UNDUE, WP:REDFLAG and WP:ATTACK applies. I explained how they misunderstand the policy. Soupforone responded I may be right about WP:ATTACK, "it's apparently BLP that applies"... here. For what it is worth, multiple admins/editors have already explained that BLP and BLPGROUP do not apply to these articles.
3. Misuse of wikipedia policies to stonewall and block others from editing. For example, Soupforone invoked WP:BURDEN here, to allege "the WP:BURDEN to obtain consensus is actually on the editor who wants to make changes. That's why I asked you to present any potential wordings first here on the talk page for discussion and consensus." When I explained that WP:BURDEN is about verifiability and providing reliable sources, and that I already provided reliable scholarly sources thereby meeting the burden, Soupforone reinterpreted the policies again.
4. WP:OWN behavior in Somalia-Ethiopia space articles. For example, in Amhara people demanding that I don't add any more sources or sourced content in that article at all per WP:BRD here without consensus with IP editor (see above). Same WP:OWN at Somalis article, where Soupforone left me the comment, "Somalis, as the page was honed through a laborious consensus process" asking me to stop removing / replacing unsourced 'citation needed' tagged "consensus" version or expanding the Somalis article with sourced content citing scholarly sources.

While content disputes can be resolved, policies can be clarified, personal attacks such linking WP:BIGOT is hostile. That page cautions, in bold, "Be careful linking other editors to this essay as direct accusations of bigotry can be interpreted as hostile, even when justified. An unfounded or speculative accusation of WikiBigotry could be considered a WP:Personal attack". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• TLDR. What do you want to happen? EEng 17:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This is an ongoing dispute in the Amhara/Ethiopeia area. Essentially it boils down to 'Native/local/related editors think articles are being negatively (Not in line with NPOV) skewed by westerners of European descent'. I am actually sympathetic after looking at the editing history of some of them over the last few weeks but have been keeping clear. There does seem to be an ongoing bias towards exaggerating some aspects of culture/history with tenuous sourcing at best. If you look at the diffs provided in the (soon to be rejected) arbcom request, part of the complaint is that sources used by Sarah Welch are not relevant to the article (they do not mention the Amhara people etc). Which (if true) is whats leading to the requests not to add more content there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    • All cites in the contested section (Amhara people#Slavery) have embedded quotes. The scholarly publications are by professors who are highly cited in Ethiopian studies, some who have lived/taught in Ethiopia. So it is not true that these are not relevant sources. Please note that the wording in the section is in part based on rewriting by Soupforone, which in good faith we must assume they did after source checks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @EEng: If WP:BIGOT evidence is found valid against Soupforone, I seek appropriate sanctions for PA. For rest, the request will depend on what the mitigating circumstances are. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

If there's a personal attack then please just give the diffs. We don't need a wall of text. EEng 20:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• @ Ms Sarah Welch, not clear for me why I was mentioned here but I think it is because I criticized your recent edit that looks like paraphrasing out of context. I did explain above in detail so instead let me just list the diffs: [121][122][123][124][125]. You added content in the article saying "the conflict was triggered by Amda Tsion" while the source here said it was precipitated by the Egyptian Sultan. And also why you ignored the most important part of the letter (threatening to tamper the Nile) in which that concerns the Egyptian Sultan and instead added a content as if the Egyptian Sultan is concerned with muslims in the Horn of Africa. I still did not get clarification on these two questions I asked which for me looks like paraphrasing out of context. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • AN/I is not a substitute for the article's talk page. The clarification was posted there about 2 hours ago. You were mentioned in this case because you are involved, as is GabiloveAdol, as evidenced by this. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Ms Sarah Welch, still no response as to why you said conflict was triggered by Amda Tsion while the scholar said it was precipitated by the Egyptian Sultan. Why I explained this issue here in ANI is because, it seems, you were trying to convince admins that your summary is in goodfaith while mine is not. I explained in detail so that Admins should be informed on your paraphrasing out of context. Instead of the walls of text, as all the other editors have said, it would have been helpful for us who are accused of personal attack to address your accusations if you have provided diffs and briefly explained how they are personal attack. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 11:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I don't understand you, just like Robert McClenon and others, above on AN/I. How was I "paraphrasing out of context"? No, not "all the other editors have said" about walls of text!! (except for non-admin EEng's strange comment, who ignored the "diff" that was already provided, and who doesn't complain of 'wall of text' similarly on other AN/I filings and discussions while responding (diff1, diff2, etc). There is nothing in AN/I guideline which says only give "diffs", "don't explain, no text at all". In my first draft I used both precipitated and triggered (with the meaning of stimulated), in the first and second sentence respectively. Nothing wrong with that, and not worthy of a discussion on AN/I. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• Ms Sarah Welch Okay people has been on my noticeboard including you earlier? But anyway regarding those article's and all the users involved are being looked at by the Oversight team, including the admin Buckshot06. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabiloveAdol (talk • contribs)
  • @GabiloveAdol: Have you already filed, or are you going to file additional cases on another wikipedia forum, on Amhara people-related matter, against anyone else such as admin Buckshot06? Please provide links to help avoid duplicate effort, and please do sign your comment by typing ~~~~ at the end of your comment. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• EEng#s, indeed. A wall of text by Ms Sarah Welch, yet not a single dif of a supposed personal attack by me against her. This is because I have not made any. The actual reason why I pointed GabiloveAdol (not her) to the bigot policy essay on his talk page was as a self-correction since we had both initially assumed that the blpgroup policy applied to ethnic groups, but an admin clarified that the latter was actually intended for smaller groups. Further, Awale-Abdi and AcidSnow can attest that there were problems with the Somali social stratification text, though these were eventually fixed. However, much of the slavery text on Amhara people is indeed undue and misrepresented, including the embedded text; EthiopianHabesha, Duqsene and Gabilolove are certainly not mistaken about that. Parts of it have been identified as fringe on the fringe noticeboard by The_Four_Deuces [126], and I've also demonstrated with direct links which other phrases are synthesized on the no original research noticeboard [127]. Only_in_death encapsulates the actual situation above well. Soupforone (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • No, @The Four Deuces never identified professor and one of the highly cited Ethiopia scholar Donald N. Levine source as a "fringe" source. In Somalis article, @Awale-Abdi deleted the text you, yes Soupforone you added, and left what I added (AcidSnow has not edited that article since August 12 2016, as you falsely allege and imply above without diffs; fwiw, my first edit ever of Somalis article was on November 14 2016). On your personal attack, I already provided the diff above, where you wrote WP:BIGOT. The context is clearly Amhara people article edits when you used WP:BIGOT link, and you are discussing @GabiloveAdol's ARB filing (diff2) that is entirely targeted at me. What is the context of your WP:BIGOT wording? and who are you insinuating to be the author of the alleged WP:BIGOT content? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Of course the context of WP:BIGOT was Amhara since GabiloveAdol alleged from the start that the page was being ethnically targeted. It's really reaching, though, to claim that I was personally attacking you for having the gall to point him (not you) to the correct policy essay on this. Also, Awale-Abdi did indicate that there were problems with the stratification stuff [128] [129], as did AcidSnow [130]. As for The Four Deuces, he wrote that the Levine claim "is not a useful source because it does not explain how or when it happened, what qualified them as slaves, how many were enslaved or provide any sources. We should not use sources where something is mentioned in passing" [131]. That seems fairly straightforward. Soupforone (talk) 07:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• WP:BIGOT is an essay about user behaviour, so could you clarify who you think it applies to, Soupforone? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• That depends on what GabiloveAdol meant by "someone wants to put a negative light on this page". Soupforone (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• For diffs of personal attack by @GabiloveAdol, who has been working with @Soupforone (diff), please see "got caught redhanded again" and "lashed out and lied" language in this diff. That they were warned about PA, see this diff by admin @Buckshot06. That the allegations are false and I did exactly quote the WP:RS on Herbert Lewis, please see this. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually, GabiloveAdol asked for moderator assistance to fix the Amhara stratification stuff, as he was concerned that "someone wants to put a negative light on this page" [132]. That is when and why I tried to help him. Soupforone (talk) 07:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    • That "someone" you identified (diff) was me. So your unsubstantiated WP:BIGOT comment is targeted at me? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Uhh, that dif indicates that you originally added the stratification stuff, which is true. Nowhere do I personally attack you. Please stop reaching for what isn't there. Soupforone (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
        • You have linked WP:BIGOT. When Cordless Larry asked you, who do you think it applies to. You explained, "That depends on what GabiloveAdol meant by 'someone wants to put a negative light on this page'." In the ARB/C filing, GabeloveAdol's links are mostly citing your advice/comments as evidence against me! Can you explain why you linked WP:BIGOT? If that "someone" is not me, who did you apply it to, or prod GabeloveAdol to apply it to? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
          • Well, it's quite simple. GabiloveAdol indicated that "someone wants to put a negative light on this page", so I pointed to blpgroup thinking that that was the correct policy for this [133]. You instead linked him to the WP:COMPETENCE policy essay [134]. GabiloveAdol later alluded to the blpgroup policy in the arb, but an admin there indicated that the policy was intended for smaller groups. As a self-correction, I then pointed GabiloveAdol to the WP:BIGOT policy essay on his talk page, explaining that apparently this was the actual standard for his particular concern (given its clause on subject-based bias) [135]. Ergo, kindly stop reaching for what is just not there. Soupforone (talk) 03:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
            • You allege "his particular concern (given its clause on subject-based bias)"? Please provide a diff where GabiloveAdol expressed this "particular concern". The link you added above doesn't show any concern that deserves WP:BIGOT answer. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment Ethnic-nationalist editors have a bias that will accuse "good faith" editors of any bias(negative) if said "good faith" editor adds content that shows a negative fact on said ethno-nationalist group. That being said, it seems a witch hunt against Ms.Welch has occurred ever since her edits in ethno-nationalist congested articles like "Ethiopia, Horn of Africa, Oromo, Amhara...etc". Bigotry goes both ways in these types of articles, for example, there are dominating ethnic groups who trample on the voices of the minority ethnic groups, when said information of minority ethnic groups is brought to attention on wikipedia: 1. edit wars occurs 2. ethnonationalist editors go on editting rampages 3. good faith editors get accused of bias/bigotry etc for false "siding with majority or minority ethnic group". Wikipedia, seriously needs to do something about ethnonationalist editors who are ruining articles through various means. Pulling the Bigotry card is nonsensical when ethnonationalist editors are the most bigoted editors on wikipedia. Motto of ethnonationalist editors is "My ethnicity is superiour to yours!".HarryDirty (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Note An SPI has been opened against Ms Sarah Welch by User:GabiloveAdol. It has also been closed and deleted within minutes. FYI. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 15:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Recreated, deleted, salted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, GabiloveAdol's particular concern is obviously his claim that "someone wants to put a negative light on this page"; that is the subject-based bias [136]. On the other hand, it's unclear what assertion of his elicited that WP:COMPETENCE policy link of yours. Soupforone (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the rationale for that was at the time, but requesting an SPI of me, Ms Sarah Welch, Buckshot06, Robert McClenon, Duqsene, etc. might be a reason to suspect competence issues now! Cordless Larry (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

This newbie clearly feels bitten. Soupforone (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is that GabiloveAdol has been editing as an IP editor since July 2014. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, GabiloveAdol has voluntarily disclosed to be same as 86.89.46.90, the latter editing since July 20 2014. FWIW, the SPI has been re-encouraged by EthiopianHabesha. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Soupforone: See the third para of WP:COMPETENCE, and this section in particular. GabiloveAdol-86.89.46.70 claimed "the sources are not correct/false or at least questionable" because "Source 35 Leads to a title but no article". This falls under, "Editing beyond one's means, Lack of technical expertise"; their repeated deletion of sources and sourced content since October 2016, falls under "Non-incremental changes"; their edit summary of "I'm removing this section because it's biased and clearly inflamiatory, it's being recently added to cause division!!!" falls under "Bias-based" of CIR. As I note above, your creative (mis)interpretation of content policies/guidelines/essays such as WP:BURDEN, and now WP:CIR, continues to be disruptive. Your linking of WP:BIGOT and (mis)interpretation of content policy pages to goad GabiloveAdol is just another level. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch: EthiopianHabesha, Only in death does duty end, The Four Deuces, myself and Duqsene have all found that there is unfortunately some substance to GabiloveAdol's claims regarding undue weight and misrepresentation on the stratification stuff. As for the wikipolicy linking, not a single dif shows that I goaded GabiloveAdol, much less that I personally attacked you. Please, do stop reaching for what just is not there. Soupforone (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Soupforone: You goading GabiloveAdol is evidenced by these diffs: 1 with your unsubstantiated WP:BIGOT link on GabiloveAdol's talk page, 2 with your "it was appended out of bad faith" comment on behalf of IP ( = GabiloveAdol), 3 with your "you're right though about WP:ATTACK; it's apparently BLP that applies here" against in a matter raised by the same IP. Further evidence: GabiloveAdol quoted you and your explanations as evidence on AR/C case which has now been declined.

Please do not misquote and misrepresent Only in death does duty end, The Four Deuces, or Duqsene. You allege they "all found that there is unfortunately some substance to GabiloveAdol's claims", but you allege without diffs. Their edit history suggests no such conclusion. @Only_in_death_does_duty_end is tentative with "Which (if true) is whats leading to". I cannot find a link where @The Four Deuses states "there is some substance to GabiloveAdol's claims". Do you have a diff of a conversation between GabiloveAdol and The Four Deuces that supports your allegation? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hardly. What I actually wrote GabiloveAdol vis-a-vis his subject-based bias claim is that "it seems that the actual standard is WP:BIGOT" [137]. Nowhere did I goad him, nor is there any dif of me personally attacking you. As for the rest, I didn't quote Only in death does duty end, The Four Deuces and Duqsene in my last post, so I obviously couldn't have misquoted them. They each did though find that there was some substance to GabiloveAdol's claims regarding undue weight and misrepresentation on the stratification stuff [138] [139] [140] (I never claimed that TheFourDeuces and GabiloveAdol chatted). Please stop reaching for what is not there. Soupforone (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Soupforone: Are you confessing you are sockpuppet of GabiloveAdol? how can you know what GabiloveAdol/86.89.46.90 has in mind? They cited no WP:BLP or other policy claims, it is you explaining and inserting these on their behalf as their opinion. If you are a sock, come clean. If you are not, stop speaking on their behalf and putting words on GabiloveAdol/86.89.46.90 behalf with "the ip is claiming that much of the material is WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG" (diff), "he/she [the IP] means that WP:BLP..." etc. (diff), etc. because IP never wrote so, only you did.

You misrepresent all three editors, and this is further evidence of a persistent behavioral problem with you. Nowhere in those links does The Four Deuces acknowledge or comment on GabiloveAdol claim, just yours. Nor does Duqsene. You link the first draft of @Only_in reply, but ignore that @Only_in revised that draft moments later to express tentativeness of "if true". That tentativeness does not imply "I found that there is unfortunately some substance to GabiloveAdol's claims". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, GabiloveAdol indicated from the start that he thought the page was being ethnically targeted and therefore asked for moderator help [141]. That is when and why I tried to help him. Also, what I wrote is that there was some substance to GabiloveAdol's claims regarding undue weight and misrepresentation on the stratification stuff. The italicized part is the actual stuff they found some legitimacy in, not all of GabiloveAdol's various claims. Only in death-- "I am actually sympathetic after looking at the editing history of some of them over the last few weeks. There does seem to be an ongoing bias towards exaggerating some aspects of the culture with tenuous sourcing at best." [142]; Duqsene-- "it would be inconceivable for Afar to raid Abyssinia" [143]; The Four Deuces-- "It is not a useful source because it does not explain how or when it happened, what qualified them as slaves, how many were enslaved or provide any sources. We should not use sources where something is mentioned in passing." [144]. Only in Death's later phrase tweak is not a tempering of his initial assertion, but rather an explanation of why there was in part resistance to the content [145]. Soupforone (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposals for GabiloveAdol and Soupforone

Based on the due evidence gathering and discussion above, I suggest an indef ban on GabiloveAdol for PA during AR/C filing, disruptive SPI filing against admins/numerous editors and other disruptive behavior in Amhara people article. Additionally, I suggest a limited sanction/warning on Soupforone. The latter recommendation is based on Soupforone's repeated assertion of "for what is not there" which suggests they may not have linked the WP:BIGOT etc in bad faith, though they did so after repeatedly trying to put their own concerns / PA through GabiloveAdol with "the IP/GabiloveAdol means...". I hope they do not attempt to speak for other IP /editors in future. This case has no direct bearing on EthiopianHabesha (on whom there is a separate AN/I case pending above). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - GabiloveAdol specifically asked for moderator help on the talk page [146]. That is when and why I tried to assist him, which obviously there is no wikipolicy against. Ms Sarah Welch also has not provided a single dif demonstrating that I either personally attacked her or WP:GOADed GabiloveAdol. Actually, this claim of hers doesn't even make sense since I advised GabiloveAdol to abort his arb filing [147]. Harsh sanctions against GabiloveAdol would be unfair, as others (including on the fringe noticeboard) have found that there is some legitimacy to his claims regarding undue weight and misrepresentation [148] [149]. Therefore, what GabiloveAdol instead needs is guidance on basic wikietiquette by an experienced admin. Soupforone (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Kavdiamanju and unconfessed paid advertising

• Kavdiamanju (talk · contribs)

It came to my attention we've had another case of FoCuSandLeArN and his paid advertising, as this current user listed above has unconfessingly started a mass amount of company articles complete with only PR or blatantly PR-like sources; take this and this, of which I've PRODed several. Recently, they also exhibited similar advertising behavior by citing similar MO about PR at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Factom, despite the current votes now show Delete. Earlier today, they then immediately removed the PROD with the stated "Advertisement article" at the specific article for Tripfez. Like with FaL, they had been involved with this for several months until boldly "retiring"; in this case, Kavdiamanju has largely changed their activities in the last months, and as the first link I showed above, it shows they have been focusing with starting cookie-cutter company articles for the past few months now. Similar, take a look at this Factom article which is one of their last contributions today, with the summary of "removing puffery and adding sources" but, like FaL, that in fact only emphasized the article's PR format, complete with PR sources, and in the case of Factom, Kavdiamanju even cared to expand the section of its employees, executives and their services. With all of this, it shows a clear COI which is still unconfessed despite the deletion actions against their articles. Because this user has become a longtime contributor and user, this is the only place we, as with FaL, can take action. FWIW, I would've given them a serious warning about WP:PAID at their talk page, but given the massive campaign here and the fact they've still continued it until today, it's unlikely to work.

Also, like FaL involving himself with images, Kavdiamanju has affiliated articles where immediate SPAs added company images, see this (and this case, different IPs). I have examined their newest company articles so far, but another similarity to FaL, here is the fact they've affiliated themselves with other non-company articles too. Kavdiamanju has never been a largely active user, but the fact they've largely involved themselves with such similarities in such a close timeline to FaL, is probable cause enough. Now, as for articles like Werner G. Scharff, I can't quite confirm the obvious chances of paid contributions, like the others, but in such a closeness and PR-vulnerable subjects, I wouldn't say no to the likeliness. Even if there's no obvious paid contributions by the company, it's clear there's unconfessed COI here. Also, to note, all involved articles so far: BookRenter ("After working for a few startups, Barceloux saw potential in the idea and teamed up with engineers"), Earny Inc ("It introduced an idea to request a refund on the user’s behalf from e-commerce companies to make sure that the users get the best dea"), GeoOrbital ("The successful kickstarter campaign in May and June 2016 generated $1,261,222 in pledges pre purchasing around 1600 wheels"), Tiptalk ("Every celebrity sets their price for a private response as a text, photo or video for question asked on the application", If the celebrity fails to answer within two days, the money is refunded back to the user"), and Tripfez ("Tripfez makes money by collecting commission for the online customers they provide the hotels") all focus with known PR-hubs for advertisers, such as the fact both BookRenter and Earny list similar TechCrunch PR-style articles, and then Tiptalk has it again. Notify Smartse who opened the last ANI for FaL. SwisterTwister talk 01:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Agree I don't follow all of SwisterTwister's points e.g. the image addition to GeoOrbital was 3 months after creation, but this version of Jeremy SH Griffith created a week ago shows several hallmarks of undisclosed paid editing. I'd prefer not to point out what they are, but I think it should be obvious. I see the same problems at here at Michael Mangini (record producer) as well. Combined with the typical obscure company articles, I think it is almost certain they are paid to write. SmartSE (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• SmartSE, I am surprised to see paid advertising remarks for me. I have edited Factom page when I thought it was pulled down to be written as a software page and not as a company page, there were several reliable sources that indicated that the company is clearly notable. As an editor, I believe that page must not be pulled down, due to the creator's mistakes or what he doesn't have an idea how it should be. The most pages created by me that are PRODED have been reviewed by a Page reviewer and not by Autopatrolled rights, which I have received almost a month back. I am noticing that even reliable sources are now considered as PR, whether they are from Forbes or Techcrunch, which are the most active news channels for the technology companies. SwisterTwister, I saw that you have PRODed 4 pages that I have created which I believe is notable because of the significant news coverage they have received from the different reliable sources. I have only UNPRODED tag for Tripfex, as it was notable not only because of the sources but the first company dedicated for the Muslim travelers and halal-tourism, as stated in Forbes and several other sources. I will certainly agree that the pages I have created were seen on Techcrunch, which is truly a notable and reliable reference. I didn't UNPRODED Bookrenter, when it was clearly mentioned by you, that there were issues in the past. I disclose that I am NOT paid by anyone for creating any page, I have added a few lines that seemed promotional to SwisterTwister, while mentioning their Business model or how the company was founded usually referred from news sources, not at all intended to promote a company.

1. GeoOrbital, was notable due to the sources and I am not linked to the editors who have later edited it. I haven't UNPRODED it
2. BookRenter, was notable due to the sources and again, not linked to the company and neither paid. I haven't UNPRODED it and will be surprised if it's pulled down, however it deserves a place like Chegg, from where I got to know about this company. Review my advert comment on the Chegg's page.
3. Tiptalk, I haven't UNPRODED it and was created by viewing the sources. Not paid for it either.
4. Earny Inc, I haven't UNPRODED it and was created by viewing the sources. Not paid for it either.
5. I have created only pages for those music producers, who were highly notable and didn't had a page. I have not intended to promote these technology companies by any means and I am surprised that an editor has made an edit after me. If you review the article, I don't think it was promotional by any-means. Michael Mangini (record producer), a a two time Grammy Award–winner, deserves a place. Adding a Discography section on Jeremy SH Griffith doesn't make it promotional rather my intent was to display why he was notable. If you see a pattern, I have created pages for Sports, technology companies and then music producers, which is not possible in case of paid editing. If I was a paid editor, I would always got a different industry rather than focusing on a particular industry at a time. I have created pages only after reading news or looking at the Wikipedia pages.

I am highly surprised to see allegations of paid edits, which is not at all even .001% true. If someone edit a page that you have created, it doesn't mean that you are paid for it, rather it is a coincidence that has happened with me only twice, for GeoOrbital after 2 months and Michael Mangini, surprisingly after a day. Either someone has been searching for him and edited the page, it really doesn't make me a paid editor. The pages I have created were only meant to describe what the company is notable for or what they have been doing. Looking forward to your comments. Kavdiamanju (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, I was looking at the comment of SwisterTwister for me "started a mass amount of company articles complete with only PR or blatantly PR-like sources", I realized that I have created 8 company pages, Growing Underground, Earny Inc, Brigade (app), GeoOrbital, TipTalk, Luxe (company) (survived AFD), BookRenter and Tripfez. I have never participated for AFD of the pages created by me as I was sure they will survive AFD if they deserve a place, review here. The only vote that was Delete was of SwisterTwister, where he has raised the same concerns of including clear interviews and PR attempts, however all others agreed that it deserves a place. Keep votes were from Northamerica1000, TheMagnificentist and Maharayamui, who all are senior editors here. Can you (SwisterTwister) please define me what are not clear interviews and PR attempts in case of technology companies that have significant news from sources including Forbes, Techcrunch, Observer and Washington Post news sources, not written by a freelance journalist. I have always attempted to give a clear scenario, what the company is about, how it was founded and why it is notable. If you feel that a certain line is promotional, instead of alleging me for paid edits here, shouldn't there have been an attempt to talk me with on my talk page or tagged with advert or edited the page. It is certainly frustrating for any editor, when he is questioned for a mass amount of company articles completed, when he has only made 8 pages over a period 8 months, when they all were covered by reliable news sources. SmartSE, your thoughts? Kavdiamanju (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

We really need to be on the same platform for the news sources when it comes to the technology companies, when one senior editor is sure that the page doesn't deserve a place and others believe it does, is it primarily due to the difference of opinion or there is really a problem? Can we sort it out? I am here only for a reason that makes me happy that I am contributing to the World's largest encyclopedia that people are going to read in the future, how the world was before them. I am not one of those people, who needs to lie to make a few dollars for his livelihood. I am clear with my goals and want to continue my contributions to make this place clean and help the community to grow up its knowledge base. I am surprised when users like Brianhe, were denied admin rights for no justified reason. Also, I am following SwisterTwister from a long time, during 2014-2015, I have always felt he is an awesome editor, we had a common view for AFD at CodeFuel, SwordPen Publishers, Sergei N. Bauer, Tasha Wahl and others. We have a difference of opinion at IndiaMART, when it seems that the decision was taken much before counting all the details in. From 2016-now, he appears to be with more of a NO point of view, I really want you to correct me, if I am really wrong. I am following Northamerica1000 and others from a long time, trying to learn how the upper level community is working and will be dedicating more time here, once I am free from my commitments. Really don't prefer to comment where I am not 100% sure including here, but to be honest, I couldn't resist against wrong allegation of paid editor here. Kavdiamanju (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kavdiamanju: just one question: are you fluent in all the languages used for sourcing on Imonomy which you created here? Or perhaps did someone help by passing you the German, Italian and Hebrew sources and the English text for the article? Brianhe (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Brianhe:, Here is the process I have followed till now. Reading technology news sources, searching for them and their competitors on Wikipedia, searching Google News to look at the sources for the pages I have created and translated using Google and Bing, wherever I feel that they were required. Most of my created pages were referred from the Wikipedia's existing pages, including sports person, tech company or any news. Never intended to promote to a company, even though it appeared to others or it really did. I preferred to be more like a delete editor earlier, but after a certain period, I felt that I should be more of contributor that's gonna help the community and its readers. Kavdiamanju (talk) 07:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I find this frankly non-credible. How is it possible to do a web search for a valid source in a foreign language that you don't even read? I'm afraid the more likely explanation is some kind of off-wiki collaboration that you haven't described. With all the other evidence presented here and the overall appearance of the articles that have been created, the likelihood is PR editing under direction. Which has now become not just Undisclosed, but actively telling untruths about it. - Brianhe (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kavdiamanju: Your first article back in 2013 was a pretty classic case of undisclosed paid editing - non-notable, promotional and essentially unsourced. Given your rebuttal, I will explain why I am confident that Jeremy SH Griffith and Michael Mangini (record producer) were paid for. It's because they contain unsourced dates of birth that are not in any of the sources cited and which I'm unable to find anywhere else. How can you explain that unless you got them from the subject? Looking more closely at the EXIF data of File:Michael_Mangini_producer.jpg I also see that it was taken with an iphone only hours before you uploaded it from Flickr (taken 09:56, 13 December 2016, uploaded 18:53, 13 December 2016). Then, as you pointed out, an editor who appears to be the subjects child edited the article within 24 hours of creation. Are we supposed to believe that these events are coincidental, or go with the much simpler explanation that you were paid to create it? SmartSE (talk) 10:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

And there's something similar with File:Geraldine_Laufer_Dec_2015.jpg where the uploaded to Flickr the same day as it was uploaded to commons. (For those checking, you need to visit flickr, and then hover your mouse over the "Taken on December 4, 2015"). Same with File:Namrata_Brar_during_a_debate.jpg etc. SmartSE (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Smartse:, Bill Moore was one of the earlier page that I have created and wasn't sure which pages qualify and which doesn't. This is the point where I have started learning. As far the birth dates, I have found them on the references and you can also refer to 1, 2.Kavdiamanju (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

What about Mangini's DOB? And all of the image uploads? SmartSE (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Smartse:, I have referred images from Flickr and here is the process I have followed to add images. Search flickr by name and the appropriate licenses.

1. File:Geraldine Laufer Dec 2015.jpg- (taken on 4 dec) Added by me on 18 Dec. There were 3 other images (Taken on April 4, 1995), I have chosen the most recent photograph.
2. File:Namrata Brar during a debate.jpg- (taken on 20 July 2016) added by me on 13 December 2016. I still couldn't believe how I have been linked to these profiles.

@Kavdiamanju: Read what I wrote again. It shows on Flickr that these images were uploaded there the very same day you uploaded them to commons. That doesn't happen by coincidence. You must have been in contact with the subjects and told them to upload them there. SmartSE (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I remember having this user on my radar for a while a couple of years ago - after some digging I found [150], [151] and [152] where Kavdiamanju added spam references in the exact same manner as a certain sock farm (the same spammy domains, too). See also this SPI where the CU did not prove anything and the behavioural evidence was seen as weak - still, there's a lot of different pieces of evidence coming together here. I have not been looking at Kavdiamanju's edits more recently, but I wanted to note that this is not a new concern. --bonadea contributions talk 13:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Bonadea:, as I have said earlier when you are new here, no one knows what are reliable links. Did I had ever added any link to any page after that? Earlier being a newbie, I wasn't sure of the reliable references, I had never ever made any non-constructive edit after that and this is how you start on Wikipedia. When you keep editing and know the community policies better, you learn and don't make mistakes. No child, can speak as fluent as an adult. Correct me If I am wrong. Kavdiamanju (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Propose ban

Per the evidence I've just listed above about the image uploads and their refusal to disclose, I would like to propose a ban. SmartSE (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support given there's enough showing this has been an unconfessed concern, and one I along with others noticed earlier, and the newest paid articles emphasize its recurrence. SwisterTwister talk 17:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Most of the concerns raised appears to when I was a newbie and not sure of the community guidelines. NO link was added after Bonadea's remarks or the first page removed. I will be surprised, if I am banned from the community for the mistakes that I have never made. Kavdiamanju (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

That's complete crap because the problems I've highlighted happened in the last month. SmartSE (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Smartse: The issues you have highlighted are Birth dates of Jeremy SH Griffith was here, Michael Mangini was from here. All images were taken from Flickr, by first downloading to my laptop and uploaded to commons referencing Flickr. You are looking at a different side of the coin, however, there isn't any perfect theory behind it. I will resolve each and every question raised here. Let me know your next set of questions. I wasn't ready earlier to accept the paid allegations remarks, but atleast ask someone to pay me first, thereafter I am ready to accept paid allegations.Kavdiamanju (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Smartse: Also, I have no right to question on this, but how did you got the birth date for Ella Woodward from here, also found several images for her on Flickr here. HCL Infosystems, clearly seems to be paid edit, without any major news reference, this line clearly seems to be promotional (The company started as manufacturing complete range of leading Mini Computers). Birth date for Michael Janisch (musician)?, he was only nominated for (He was nominated for a MOBO Award in 2016 in the category for Best Jazz Act). Point lies here, I have no intention of alleging anyone for paid edit but, this is the same cup of tea, I have received without any valid and justified reason. If I will start looking at any page from a problematic point of view, I will always start finding the problems, whether they exist or not. Ready to answer your next set of questions.@SwisterTwister: Kavdiamanju (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

You're missing the point. No one really gives a damn how you transferred the images from Flickr to Commons. What we do care about is how you explain the extraordinary coincidence that the images you uploaded to commons for articles on relatively obscure people you just recently created, were themselves just uploaded to Flickr not long before you wanted them. BTW it looks a lot like the Wordpress page was only created in 2017. Can you explain how you added a birthdate in late 2016 from a page created in 2017? Even if I'm mistaken, the page doesn't seem to be indexed by either Google or Bing. Can you describe how you actually found it? Nil Einne (talk) 06:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nil Einne. @Kavdiamanju: if you'd actually looked carefully, you'd see that none of that information was added by me. This discussion is about you and we are still waiting for an explanation about these image uploads. SmartSE (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

And based off the urls for files on that wordpress site e.g. I agree that it looks like it was created in 2017. SmartSE (talk) 09:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:, @Smartse: Did you made an attempt to search for Mangini's website like this, I can find that in one go. I have earlier clarified that I always search images on Flickr, that anyone can access. Only one photograph I have added was of December (that was a pure co-incidence) and other were atleast 3-4 months old.03:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support Wikipedia depends on collaboration, and collaboration depends on trust. This editor has betrayed my trust and demonstrated flagrant abuse of our community's goodwill. Enough. - Brianhe (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Brianhe:, none of my contributions have abused of the community's goodwill, I spent countless hours to keep the community clean. You are taking decision on one major co-incidence and no evident proof for any edit. If I am banned from the community, I won't be at the loss rather the community will be at the loss by losing an editor who has helped several new editors, deleted thousands of spam pages and helped the new editors. Let's talk logic, after this discussion do you also think, that I can use this account for any paid activity or abuse???' The only reason I am saying this is because I am not involved in any abusive activity. I need my account to make the contributions, if I lose it, you lose your one of the best editor in the last 3 years. 03:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support also, as we have done with other recent UPE cases, their contributions and created articles should be reviewed. Any articles they created in violation of Wikipedia's rules against paid editing and not substantially improved by someone else should be deleted. Editors banned/indefed for UPE should have their contributions treated retroactively as we treat contributions by editors who edit in violation of a block or ban since they have been editing in violation of the Terms of Use. Jbh^Talk 22:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: Please reveiw my created pages, you will find that all of the pages deserves a place. They have been evidentally reviewed from a single point of view and I have never ever abused my autopatrolled rights. Let's talk logic, after this discussion do you also think, that I can use this account for any paid activity or abuse??? The only reason I am saying this is because I am not involved in any abusive activity. I need my account to make the contributions, if I lose it, you lose your one of the best editor in the last 3 years. Kavdiamanju (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

First, I tend to give a lot of weight to the concerns of @Smartse and Brianhe: they both have a lot of experience in identifying UPE. When I looked at your most edited articles I see edits like [153] which looks like PR 'buffing' along with several other edits at Wayne Elsey which talk more about his charity than the person which is often indicative of PR management of a biography. I do not doubt that you make good faith contributions as well but there are also many edits which are typical of what we see with paid promotion. Articles like BookRenter tend to reinforce the impression. Jbh^Talk 15:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Smartse:, @Jbhunley:, @Brianhe:, Can you please review my created pages? I have created only 9 company pages since the last 3 years (8 pages in the last 9 months). Did I have ever participated in AFD's of my pages, NO I didn't. What is the point, I have added images that are questioned were searched on flickr. Putting a ban, when there is no solid proof or anything evident that can make sure that I have been paid is really disgraceful and is insulting for me. I have no words to describe how exactly I am feeling now, even when you are not wrong and cannot prove your innocence. Kavdiamanju (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Whilst you may only have created 9 pages, there has been significant addition of content across a wide range of subjects- e.g. at Varsity Spirit where the page history shows heavy paid editing from SPAs, which you seem to have been a part of. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support I don't think this is related to Focusandlearn, but I might have misread SwisterTwister's initial post, however it is clear that there is some paid editing here; all the hallmarks have been demonstrated from the evidence presented above by SmartSE, especially with the same day Flickr -> commons -> Wikipedia path we saw with Focusandlearn being repeated here. Whilst it is true that there is not a single piece of totally inrefutable evidence that shows you've been paid to edit some of your articles, the individual pieces of evidence (such as the unsourced dates of birth, readding references that were added by a sockfarm before being removed, being able to use sources in multiple languages that were probably provided by the subject) all add together to create, IMO, a fairly solid case for paid editing. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Kend94

Following a recent block for adding unsourced and copyright material to articles including Syrians in the Netherlands, Kend94 has just added the unsourced statistics again, and then created a duplicate article at Syrians in the Netherland. I think we have competence issues here, with the editor clearly not understanding the message about what they're doing wrong. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

And subsequent addition of copyright material here. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I've deleted the duplicated, copyviolating page. Can't do more right now (time constraints) but I'll check in again in one hour and consider further action unless somebody beats me to it...Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Final warning left along with an offer to advise the user on practice here.[154] Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested block of User:Hijiri88

Please see information at User talk:John Carter#Stop following me, please, a comment which, as I have indicated subsequently in that section, is based on previous discussion here grounds for a ban of at least one month of that editor. John Carter (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• "I am myself disgusted and more than a bit repulsed by the at least borderline monomaniacal paranoia which Hijiri88 rather regularly displays." Really now? You want to raise a request at ANI after referring to another editor in that manner? Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• If you are asking me whether I think someone acting in clear violation of sanctions deserves sanctions, yes. I think it would very much benefit any individual who comes to this matter to review the really extensive history of Hijiri88 here, at ArbCom, and elsewhere, and his conduct as discussed there. WP:SPADE seems to me to apply regarding my phrasing, which, I believe perhaps the most accurate summation of my view of his own conduct and of my reaction to it. Also, I believe it will be noted that I had previously left a note on Drmies's page reguesting the block, based on his involvement in the discussion earlier in that thread and here and elsewhere, and, maybe, review the history of my own edits of that section. But, in all honesty, yes, I wish to raise the question of a transparent violation of a ban from my user talk page, and I believe that according to policies and guidelines I am more than justified to do so. John Carter (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

So the next question is why are you still following Hijiri around after periods of inactivity which is obvious from your contributions. This seems like goading behaviour and coupled with your repeated accusations of mental illness on their part looks like gaslighting. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I think the next question is whether you are willing or capable to deal with the transparent violation of sanctions being discussed, and whether you have made much if any review of much of the material which relates to this matter.. I have rather clearly said on my user talk page that I am "semi-retired," and I have also, rather clearly, indicated over the years that I have a rather huge watchlist and that I in fact check some pages more frequently than others. I think the more important questions here are related to the matter of an explicit violation of terms which were previously imposed on both of us, and, honestly, I suggest that, if you are unwilling or unable to address those concerns directly, @Only in death:, that you at least refrain from any attempts at future cross-examination regarding what is a transparent violation of sanctions. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I have reviewed the material, including the original posting which led to the talk-page ban, I see you made accusations on their mental facilities then too. As well as blatantly and provably false accusations. I think the more important thing here is that you refrain from accusing other editors of mental illness either directly or indirectly and stop trying to goad editors you know have no wish to interact with you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

And I think maybe the most important thing for you to do is read WP:SOAPBOX regarding your apparent attempt to turn this reasonable request to take sanctions in accord with previous discussion. If you are unwilling or incapable of doing so, then I believe that there is perhaps just cause to believe that review of your own conduct in this matter, which can I think not unreasonably be seen as being an attempt at misdirection at best, might also be reviewed. John Carter (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to ANI John Carter. This is why egregious behavior by some editors are allowed. I don't want to bring people to ANI just on the off-chance someone goes witch-hunting through my past. It's not the way it should be but it is the way of ANI, so if you bring someone to ANI your past will also be looked into. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I thought this dispute looked familiar... Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#John_Carter_continuing_to_post_on_my_talk_page_despite_repeated_warnings_not_to EvergreenFir (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Bingo. Its also the same situation that led to that complaint in the first place. John Carter following Hijiri around. It also contains the same personal attacks by John Carter. At this point they just need a two-way interaction ban. No one can follow the other, no one can talk to the other etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thread removed from JC's talk page, so that seems to put an end to that part of the problem. JC should be aware that such overtly aggressive snide remarks about another editor's mental health will likely result in a block if it happens again. Both H and JC are reminded that the prohibition against posting to each others' talk pages from last year remains in effect, and will likely result in a block if it happens again soon; but that isolated slip-ups a year later are not grounds to get the other person banned. Both are reminded that they frequent the same editing area, and will undoubtedly overlap in their editing, and should remain scrupulously polite to each other when interacting on project pages; responding to one another politely is not harassment, and should stop being described as such. Anything else? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC) sigh. I screwed up the ping. Fixing ping of User:Hijiri88 and re-signing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I would've said let them fish their wish from the above-linked ANI and implement a full 2-way interaction ban, but eh, maybe this is close enough. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Do I answer first, or do I look up "fish their wish" first? Hmmm.... I hesitate to implement an interaction ban because they both seem to frequent the same editing area, where they both seem to make useful productive edits. Is that incorrect? Is my read on their usefulness and productivity wrong? (not rhetorical, this is an actual question, not to be answered by either one of them, but by others.) Still, I'd much prefer that they both act like grown ups. If that doesn't happen then I guess we'll be back here soon, I'll apologize to everyone for not being aggressive enough, and we can do it that way. Now, off to Urban Dictionary. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Generally depends on your definition of 'usefulness' which is probably not a useful conversation to go into at length. Without getting into the merits of the actual content - Hijiri is more active and edits the articles more, JC has periods of inactivity and less actual content work (where their editing intersects). A two way ban would prevent JC and Hijiri talking on the talk page or commenting on each others edits and from reverting each other (which they generally dont do anyway at this point). So in terms of impact - it will impact Hijiri's content work very little and JC's talkpage contributions a lot (regarding Hijiri). I dont see a huge down-side. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm still wondering what "fish their wish" means. Anybody? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

[155] Mysticdan (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

{Outdent}} If I might point out something which others might miss, I think it may be important that the talk page comment by the other was made after I responded to his comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible, regarding Bible MOS. Specifically it might be noted that he made what gives me the impression of being what he thought was a "gotcha" comment about how all other religions were already covered by MOS, and I pointed out one rather prominent work which was not covered, and any number of other potential works. In my previous dealings with Hijiri88, I have noticed rather regularly a remarkable inability to effectively deal with having his statements found to be less substantiated than he likes, and I personally believe his comment on my talk page was probably at least partially motivated by the vindictive nature he has regularly displayed over the years, including the behavior that led to the ArbCom case regarding him. If others feel these comments of mine do not belong here, of course, feel free to remove them. John Carter (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• John Carter has been following my edits for two years. I'll gather a bit of evidence later today, but it's there for anyone to check themselves. He has also hypocritically, repeatedly, accused me of following him. He also has a long history of accusing me and others of being "insane" or "paranoid" (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3#John Carter has made personal attacks -- had I been aware of this during my Arbitration case with him I would have requested that the Arbs put the same thing about him there, as he has been saying the same things about me since April 2015). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it will be ready before this thread goes into TLDR territory, if it hasn't already, and I don't want to make that problem worse, but the evidence I've collected so far is at User:Hijiri88/NPA/HOUND violations. This whole incident has been very emotionally draining, and having to go back over the last two years of diffs (even in this incomplete manner) hasn't helped. I would really rather be building an encyclopedia than dealing with this any more than I have to, and I don't have the will power to do any more today anyway. I apologize for not finishing what I said I would. I apologize as well for my having forgotten that the informal ban was formalized with a threat of enforcement by block. My excuse, such as it is, for forgetting can be read in my reply to Softlavender below. I will try my utmost to do better in the future, both in fulfilling my own word and in fulfilling the formal requirements that are placed upon me. I cannot say any more. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• No, Hijiri, I have been trying to prevent you and your extreme lack of self-control, from causing the premature retirement of others due to your own hounding. The best example of that is the now inactive Catflap08. Trying to keep your uncontrollable petty vindictiveness from causing further damage to the project is I think a goal most would find acceptable. And I wonder what anyone else would say about your regular demonstration of keeping "attack files" regarding others, including me, and your repeated requests of others to e-mail you for them. One such file right now is your new User:Hijiri88/NPA/HOUND violations, which, unusually, is actually being kept here now, as opposed, apparently, somewhere on your computer for you to be able to easily e-mail to others, something you have repeatedly indicated a desperate willingness to do. I only noted this given the remarkable lack of further verbose editing by Hijiri88, which, as I think the history of this page indicates, is extremely uncharacteristic, perhaps even unique, in his recent history.
• However, I once again note, none of the comments above seem to directly address the substantial matter here, which is an explicit violation of a explicitly placed sanction placed against both of us. I really think ending the blather and dealing with the explicit violation of sanctions, in some form or other, is probably what is needed here, not more of the comments such as the above. John Carter (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Floq above was perhaps not forceful enough. STOP. BOTH OF YOU. NOW. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

"No, Hijiri, I have been trying to prevent you and your extreme lack of self-control" WHY are you doing this? You two CLEARLY have issues with each other, to the point where you've been warned, repeatedly, to leave each other alone. So explain to me WHY you would go out of your way to do this?

I admit I am not 100% familiar with this entire case, but this seems horribly clean cut. John Carter comes out of an extended break and immediately starts hounding Hijiri 88, and then when Hijiri 88 rightly tells him to cut it out, he reports him trying to wikilawyer a block. John, do us ALL a favor and walk away from this. Stop replying to him, stop interacting with him, ignore him. If you are incapable of doing this, you will quickly find yourself blocked for this bullshit I'm sure. --Tarage (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I like to read these things when I get board .. ok so this would be a "boomerang" thing right ?? this John carter thinks Hijiri88 is ... not right in the head but .... Jena (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Then maybe you might actually read the comments which have repeatedly said that this thread is about an explicit violation of a sanction which had previously been imposed on both of us, and which Hijiri88 has rather clearly and blatantly violated. That is the substance of this matter which caused this thread to be started. John Carter (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I misunderstood what you meant. Everyone else, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#John_Carter_continuing_to_post_on_my_talk_page_despite_repeated_warnings_not_to, which states "Both John Carter and Hijiri88 are hereby banned from each other's talk pages on pain of a minmum one month ban. Such restriction applies if either editor is logged out. The only exception is that either may post on the other any required notication, such as an issue being raised at WP:ANI concerning them." A check of the history of Hijiri's talk demonstrates that John hasn't edited Hijiri's talk (except to post said notification upon starting this thread) since well before the ban was imposed in April 2016. There's no way that this is a WP:BANEX or unexpected WP:IAR reason, so I see no reason not to impose the "minimum one month ban", but I suppose someone might complain WP:INVOLVED if I did it (I filed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88, being unrelated to the dispute but seeing persistent disputes between those two), so I'll urge anyone who's 100% uninvolved to impose the requested ban. Whether or not John deserves sanctions is an unrelated matter. Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nyttend: I don't recall any ban being put in place in April 2016. John and I both placed an unofficial ban on posting on each other's talk pages early in 2015. In April 2016, John (or someone with the same IP) posted a logged out comment on my talk page, which I think is what you are referring to. But violating informal talk page bans is the least of my concerns. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oh, wait. I had actually completely forgotten until just now that Mjroots actually had closed that thread last April with the implementation of a formal ban. I apologize for the slip-up. I will do my utmost to ensure that it does not happen again.

Re-pinging User:Nyttend so he doesn't get a notification of my above post and not the retraction.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

How can you "not recall" it when not only did Nyttend link directly to it there, but also it was enacted in the administrator's close of that April 2016 ANI thread that you yourself started, and then was also posted immediately thereafter on your talk page [156], and not only that, you proceeded to argue about the TP ban with the closing admin on their talk page [157]? And not only that, it was mentioned and linked to yesterday in the thread you started on John Carter's talk page [158], and then reiterated in the OP of this thread. Softlavender (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC); edited 09:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Again, my apologies for not recalling correctly. If you really want the reason (apart from the notification having been almost a year agoand the close having been several days after I stopped posting in the thread) it is that it was more than a year after the informal ban had been put in place, and that informal ban had come up so frequently in the intervening time (as opposed to the formal ban, which has never come up until now) that it was all I remembered. I remembered the discussion as an IBAN discussion that failed to result in a standard IBAN. When I saw Nyttend's comment to which I was responding, I thought he was misreading the many commenters who agreed that the informal ban should be adhered to as constituting a formal "ban". But these are feeble excuses. I should have gone back to check the last time this was brought up, before posting on John's talk page. It was a mistake, and I will try my best to keep it from happening again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri, Nyttend not only linked to the TP ban, he quoted it directly, with quotation marks. Not only that, I did the same down below (and you read and replied to my post at the same time as you replied to Nyttend above), and John Carter mentioned it in the OP here. Even considering that despite the facts that the ANI was one you started, and your subsequent discussions of the admin's TP ban spanned two different talkpages (including yours), you might have somehow forgotten about it, it strains credulity that you did not bother to read Nyttend's clearly worded, quoted, and linked post, or mine either, even though you replied to both [159] (even if you did somehow not bother to read John Carter's OP here or his last reply to the thread you recently started on his talk page). Softlavender (talk) 09:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear from my response to you and MR below, I was replying to specific misconceptions in what both of you said. I did not read the rest of what you wrote very closely. The same is true of Nyttend's comment above; or, rather, I misread the latter half of his comment as containing the same kind of misconception, but if I had been more careful I would have noticed earlier that it was not a misconception at all. I admit this was out of line, and it's not something I normally do, but (as is hopefully clear from my comment above) this entire experience has been very emotionally draining on me, and I was getting sick to my stomach by the time I wrote that.

As you point out, my mistake was incredibly obvious -- I could not be lying, because I would not have expected to get away with it. I had legitimately forgotten, until after you posted your first reply to me above, that there had been a formal ban in place. I remembered an informal ban that both of us had violated multiple times over the course of more than a year, and this had ended after I reported one violation last April. The close had apparently come several days after I had given up on the thread, and I had filed it away in my head in the incredibly thick "I reported John Carter but he got away without sanction because the thread got too long to close" file. It might also be worth noting that I posted several days ago I'm aware that JC doesn't like me posting on his talk page. I figured one message telling him to back off would be okay but I'm not going to hazard editing there again.[160] I was still very much of the mind that this was an informal mutual request to stay off each other's talk pages rather than a formal ban. Again, this does not excuse my having failed to remember that I was subject to a ban, and I am legitimately sorry that I violated it; I have every intention of being more careful going forward.

You can choose to believe that I thought I would get away with violating a direct an unambiguous ban that I was fully aware of, or you can choose to believe that I had forgotten about it. I hope it's clear that I know that if John Carter can report me he will report me. You and I have had positive interactions before, so I don't need to assume good faith on your part (I know you are acting in good faith), but I hope you will assume good faith on my part.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

yep I have ... Maby you would Like to read everything again ? Jena (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• OK, so, the user-talk ban came with an "on pain of a minimum one month ban" consequence [161], so technically Hijiri is due that. On the other hand, from what I've seen on ANI about this in the past, I largely agree with Only in death that, despite Hijiri's failings, John Carter largely is and has been the longterm aggressor here, and that a 2-way IBAN is probably the way to go. That or ArbCom. The fact that Hijiri keeps racking up IBANs is rather curious though. But that, in my opinion, is no reason for John Carter to stalk or hound him. Softlavender (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

That's what I'm seeing too. Hijiri's technically at fault, but was very clearly goaded into it by John. Neither editor is faultless, and frankly, I'm more bemused by John's wikilawyering. --Tarage (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Re the fact that Hijiri keeps racking up IBANs. I am subject to two IBANs, one with a retired user and one with someone who was one-way hounding me. The latter was proposed as a one-way IBAN but the other Arbitrators voted it down on the technicality that one-way IBANs don't work. I don't want to go into any more detail for obvious reasons, but the evidence is there if you want it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Well what we have is a brightline violation by Hijiri88 of the restrictions imposed upon him. It would not be unjustifiable to follow through with a 1 month block. That said, it is also abundantly clear thay John Carter has made several personal attacks on Hijiri in the course of just a single post; ranging from a variety of mental health problem accusations to not here to build an enecyclopaedia. So it would only be just to impose a block on John Carter for those. Either all transgressions are sanctionable or none are. I think a one month block is in order; one week for the accusation of incompetence and for the declaration of not here, and three weeks for the minimum three varied accusations of mental instability, paranoia and delusions. Alternatively, close with no action and tell both editors to stay away from each other or further transgressions will involve far more serious repercussions; lets see who is willing to double down on this childishness. For what its worth, I think Hijiri's comment about hounding/stalking is unfounded if not baseless. But this is plain Wikilawyering, and Id far rather see the two editors separated than sanctioned pointlessly to the detriment of the encyclopaedia and the editors, and support a full two way IBAN over any other action. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: Not meaning to imply I don't appreciate your comment overall, but my case against John Carter has never been primarily about hounding, so you can reject all my claims on that point if you like. I'm currently TBANned from the two articles John Carter most blatantly followed me to, so I won't name them, but they are in the list of links I've been compiling in my user space. It would also be extremely difficult for John Carter to explain his relationship with CurtisNaito in a way that didn't show him following me to various articles and a GA reassessment in 2015. The rest of the evidence is pending, but some of it is here if you really wanna see it. But again, if he were civil and didn't try to undermine me all the time, I wouldn't mind him showing up in so many places I edit. The most recent instance is one place where he was basically civil and agreed with me on the substance, so the only problem is the hounding, but even when he overall agrees with me he also usually finds bizarre excuses to disagree with me on some small points, like claiming that Bart Ehrman's (non-existant) translations have probably been criticized[162] or that being a Roman Catholic might lead someone to reject the gnostic classification of the Gospel of Thomas.[163] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Appreciate the response and links Hijiri88. I took a look through them, and to me this one really stood out. If I am following the page history correctly and talk page discussion in archive 2, John Carter exercised complete ownership of your own edits to Kenji Miyazawa. Edits which you self-reverted and they forced back into the article by edit-warring? not only that but he had no prior involvement with that article at all, jut a little bit of talk page commentary a month prior. Making absolutely no comment about anybody's behaviour it is abundantly clear that these interactions do not positively impact the encyclopaedia. A few of the other links that I looked at struck me as being provocative, but, at the same time a few of the diffs I am unconcerned about; if I had contributed heavily to an article or discussion it would be on my watchlist permanently and I might return after years not months to them. I am wary of taking any evidence from distant pasts to take actions now, very much so, so I would not propose any block or T/PBan based on these diffs, but, I am only drawn even more so to the conclusion that this needs to be met with a full two-way IBAN. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Enough already. They obviously need a complete, permanent 2-way IBAN, with an understanding that the first one to violate it gets a lengthy block. These two are never going to get along, and they've already wasted more than enough of everyone else's time. Fyddlestix (talk) 07:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree with above. A block on one party with no change in the ban would solve nothing. A block on both parties would do nothing given the ongoing issues. Put it to a full interaction ban. I also think John Carter needs an explicit warning to not cast aspersions on others mental state. From the Arbcom case Hijiri linked above (completely unrelated to Hijiri) its clear this is a go-to insult for JC and has been going on for years. Accusing others of not being competent is one thing, accusing multiple editors over a period of 4/5 years of mental issues is entirely another. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I concur, especially about John Carter's incivil comments towards others who disagree with him. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I generally edit only two days a week recently, by choice, and those two days have already taken place, so I am not going to spend a lot of time on this. There may well be repetition and bad phrasing, for which I apologize now, but I am not going to waste a lot of time here. FWIW, I have to say that one of the reasons I have been less active in recent months is to avoid this individual and his behavior. It will be noticed that I, now, admittedly perhaps stupidly, after the ArbCom regarding Hijiri88, thought that a ban from Christianity would not be required. I have deeply come to regret that statement of mine.

I also very seriously regret my language used above, which was, to my own eyes, based on the failure of the first responders to actually make any attempt to review the whole situation, including the explicitly stated existing ban, and that in my irritation I basically "blew up". It should, I think, be noted that I asked only for the minimum ban under the previous statement, and that I only posted here after commenting on Drmies page and receiving no response there. The combination of circumstances, combined with my own profound irritation by the other editor involved, which is one of the primary reasons for my recent break, reflects very poorly on me, and on that basis I cannot oppose such a ban, and would support it.

I would ask the individuals who say I am the primary party at fault to review the most recent interactions. I commented on a thread at ANI specifically addressing Maunus now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive941#Rjensen, Me and egregious violations of policy in which Hijiri88 was involved on the basis of seeing Maunus's name there. I have had numerous contacts with him in the past, including at the Bartolomé de las Casas page and its talk page, and have, generally, thought well of him. Yes, it is also a thread in which, for the first time that I can remember having ever seen at ANI, someone requested an interaction ban with someone else based on the latter's conduct during the time of the ANI thread, that someone else being Hijiri88. My few in that thread were about the length of the thread in general, largely because, as I indicated, the length in general was such that I would not comment. Finally, after the interaction ban with Hijiri88 was proposed, it should be noted I did not in fact support it or address it at all, although I clearly could have, but, instead, mentioned that the lack of self-control Hijiri88 displayed there and elsewhere seems to have benn involved. I also note that, as per the recent two threads at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible, the first of which was specifically linked to by Hijiri at WT:X, a page I have watched and am in fact one of the most active editors at. To accuse me of "stalking" on that regard is to my eyes laughable. I have also commented in the past regarding the Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard, and, on that basis, in previous discussions I am too lazy to link to here, I was accused by him of thinking and stating that the Bible was Christian only. I responded, more than once as I recall, that the Bible project is transcluded in the noticeboard, and that I was referring to it on that basis. Those discussions were, apparently after he actually looked at the links and saw what I said was accurate, were, as seems to be his habit, collapsed by him with a pejorative hatnote I believe because he could not and cannot face being found to be in error. FWIW, I personally believe that the primary, if not only, reason for this post on my user talk page is, as I first said in the Kenji Miyazawa discussion, that I have basically seen numerous indications that in and of himself he can never acknowledge being in error, and that my commenting at the ANI thread and the Bible threads were clearly taken by him as being only motivated by my apparent stalking of him. Again, the thinking that, somehow, I, who have been one of the most active editors at the Christianity project ever, might somehow, apparently exclusively for his benefit, not respond to messages there, seems to me to raise basic competence issues. In fact, given the recent history of that page, I wonder whether it would be reasonable for him to think anyone else would have responded first. I also wish to point out that the note on my talk page seems to have come after the Bible threads, and that leads me to believe that his posting on my talk page was, I said, more motivated by personal vindictiveness on his part than anything else. I accept and support the possibility of Iban as stated below. However, I would also ask that those involved look at the recent history at WT:BIBLE, including a thread asking a question about the Apocrypha which is actually specifically addressed in the first visible screen of the project page. Even if, as I personally believe, the second thread was started to try to distract from the potentially poorly thought out one immediately before it, there are I believe very serious questions regarding basic WP:CIR in general regarding someone who has to ask a question so clearly and visibly answered on the project page itself, and, possibly, regarding whether the community is in some way required to continue to exhibit patience for someone so clearly unable or unwilling to make any visible effort to not waste the time of others with such an obvious question. I have no reservations whatsoever about an Iban, but I believe that taking into account that perhaps the only reason he was not earlier banned from the Christianity area or perhaps the broader religion area was that I did not support or propose it myself, I would welcome consideration from others regarding whether based on his recent conduct such a ban, based at least in part on the competence issues involved at the pages above, is worth considering. I will not do so myself based on my own lack of trust in my judgment regarding the matter the first time the idea was proposed. John Carter (talk)

So, what you are saying is that another user was behaving disruptively and requesting a POINTy IBAN with me based on my having chimed in on a random ANI thread, and so I should face sanctions for that? I'm sorry for not reading the rest of your above wall-of-text. It doesn't apparently include diffs or any other kinds of evidence, so I can assume it's just the same personal attacks and bogus accusations you've been treating me to for two years, and I would likely be happier if I never read it and never have to read anything you write about me again. I would request that others judge it on its merits, though. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed IBAN

It's obvious that informal warnings haven't worked here, so I would like to formally propose an indefinite 2 way interaction ban between User:Hijiri88 and User:John Carter. Hopefully this will resolve things and if this happens yet one party continues to directly and/or indirectly interact with the other, further measures can be taken to resolve the dispute. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support - as proposer. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support. This has been on the table and requested by both editors since before the last ANI. Let's see if it resolves the issues. Softlavender (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support Although I have to admit I find John Carter's accusations of mental issues quite disturbing. It seems to be a trend with him, as I recall him doing the same thing with the Ebionites ArbCom case. Since neither "side" here can seem to let things go, let's see if this works. If it doesn't, I can't see anything but an ArbCom case working. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support per my comment in the section above. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support long overdue. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support, it's a shame that such productive editors should need this but I'm sure a formal, recorded decision such as this will help them both to avoid conflict with one another. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support per my above comments. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support to see what happens, but with the full knowledge that H88 is already IBanned with Catflap, was IBanned with Tristan noir (who hasn't edited in a year) until that was converted to a one-way ban for TN towards H88, and is the subject of two topic bans and a 1RR restriction. On the other hand, John Carter has one IBan (with Ignocrates) and a topic ban, so it's uncertain whether this IBan, if it passes, will "solve" anything. (All these sanctions can be seen at WP:Editing restrictions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support (obviously) This was what I was gunning for last April (and probably how the thread should have been closed then, given the unanimous support). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'm sure you're aware that if the IBan passes, you'll need to immediately have your page of information on John Carter deleted, right, using "db-author"? The only legitimate reason to keep information such as that in your user space is that you plan to use it for some kind of request for sanctions or relief, but the IBan will prevent you from filing any such request. John Carter, I haven't looked, but if you have anything similar collected on Hijiri88, it, too, will need to be deleted, as keeping it would be a violation of the IBan. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Technically, from a pure policy standpoint, I don't think I would be under an obligation to speedy the page myself, as my having made it prior to the IBAN would not count as a violation, any more than having John Carter's name appear 24 times in my talk page archives would be a violation. I also have a bunch of dormant/redundant user pages: User:Hijiri88/JoshuSasori rebuttal isn't an example of grave-dancing just because the user in question was banned several months after I created it.

I'm making this point just because I don't know if in the past two years I may have mentioned John Carter somewhere else in my user-space, and I don't want to be accused of violating the IBAN just because I didn't search out and excise those references. I also don't want to see speedied a certain other page that I do know mentioned John Carter until I excised that part a moment ago.

If someone else put the page up for speedy, and I opposed, that would be a violation of course.

That said, of course I would be happy to have the page speedied anyway. The sooner I can forget about this whole mess, the better, so I wouldn't want someone else to come along and speedy it and notify me months down the line.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The point is that since such pages are only allowed for a short period of time while a complaint is being prepared, and since the IBan would rule out filing a complaint, the page would thus automatically, with the passage of the IBan, contravene policy. Any prior mention of John Carter wouldn't come under the same policy, so it should be OK. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not so much that an IBAN would "rule out" filing a complaint. Since the purpose of my complaint was to request an IBAN, getting that result makes the evidence I gathered redundant. The fact that I submitted the evidence above in an unfinished state doesn't mean I would have tried to "finish" it and present it in the form of a further complaint at some future date; the evidence was only being gathered in the first place with the goal of getting the IBAN. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the ultimate point is that you should delete the page if the iban is implemented since policy requires subpages of evidence in user space only exists for a short time until the evidence is copied to an appropriate case which can no longer happen once the iban has been implemented. And in any case, such a subpage isn't really appropriate when John Carter has zero ability to comment on anything contained within. As for other pages, it should be trivial to look for all your subpages although you should really keep track of your subpages anyway. Comments you've made elsewhere are obviously not a problem unless the comment is a problem without the iban. Nil Einne (talk) 07:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support As with others, I find John Carter's suggestion of mental health issues disturbing and it's something which I'd consider close to enough to warrant a fairly long block by itself. In addition, while I've commented before it's difficult to prove following from only 2 or 3 instances, the number of times where John Carter happens to come out of a break to comment on something Hijiri88 has said is concerning. As for Hijiri88, accepting they didn't remember there was a formal ban on posting on each other's talk pages, it's still a violation and if you're going to wrack up bans, you need to remember them. Actually remembering a ban is more important than remembering the problems you have with the other editor (even if I can understand why it's easier to remember the later). Nil Einne (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Currently, both parties are involved in (separate) active interaction bans. When editors have to be banned from interacting with multiple people, perhaps it's not the chemistry that's at issue. How long until we're back here again with one of the same names up against someone new? Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, and if editors find themselves unable to work collaboratively and unable to remove themselves from the situations causing problems, we should resolve the behavioral issues or remove them from the community until they convince us the issues are resolved. If John Carter is harassing another editor, as seems the case here, that's cause for a block, not a saction which pushes that behavioral problem on to whoever has the misfortune of annoying him next. I don't see enough problematic behavior from Hijiri presented here to warrant any action there. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

It's either this or ArbCom, and attempting this should precede ArbCom for protocol reasons. As you note both editors already have IBANs, and at least one has recurring behavioral issues. If either of them get reported (even independently of each other) here again, I imagine an ArbCom will ensue. But there's not enough (time or) evidence here to block either one at present, beyond Hijiri's apparently forgetting his TP ban. And there's also a disinclination to get thoroughly into the multitudinous exact facts and diffs of behavioral issues at present when this is simpler, and the former would be more appropriate for ArbCom. I imagine that, if John Carter has been following this thread, he has presumably taken on board that he is on notice for questioning people's mental health [and for stalking or harassing other editors] and that if he does it again strong sanctions will ensue. Softlavender (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I'm not saying do nothing. I'm saying block editors who harass other editors so they don't just go harass someone else. An IBan will not be effective, as it has been shown already that both of these editors have behavioral issues not just with respect to each other but with respect to other contributors as well (see existing IBans). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned, there is neither sufficient evidence, nor any support, nor even remotely sufficient value to blocking either or both editors, much less for a long period. They are both productive and constructive editors, and simply need more rope to prove it. It would not be in anyone's interest to block either of them at present, especially without a fair hearing. Softlavender (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

A hearing? Are you talking ArbCom? This isn't a trial, but nonetheless, the evidence on display makes it pretty clear that John Carter is hounding Hijiri. Moreover, he's been interaction banned in the past for similar hostile behavior directed at other contributors. Administrators have a response to prevent harassment from happening, not just react to each individual instance with an interaction ban. In this case, a block would be preventative. I'm not saying a long-term block is necessary immediately, but a block of a sufficient length to impart the idea that this behavior is unacceptable would be wise. If it continues, then we'd be talking long-term blocks. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Where are the diffs presented on this thread that provide sufficient evidence for an immediate block that John Carter is stalking Hijiri across numerous articles over an extended period of time despite an official warning that if he continued to do so he would be immediately blocked? No warning has ever been given to that effect. We do not block longterm, constructive, productive users without warnings, and for warnings we need sufficient evidence of longterm abuse, and the opportunity for rebuttal. Where is the opportunity for John Carter to rebut any possible such evidence and provide his own evidence? There has been none because there have been no diffs presented on this thread (there has been a link to a start-up one-sided evidence page being collected by Hijiri, but that material has never been submitted into evidence here on this page, much less been give the opportunity for rebuttal and counter-evidence). Hijiri is and has been subject to multiple interaction bans as well. If John Carter were blocked at this juncture, it would be strictly punitive (as you your self said, "to impart the idea that this behavior is unacceptable"), because he is not at the present moment stalking or hounding Hijiri. If you would like to propose a block, or propose a final warning about stalking, perhaps you should do so in a separate subthread with separate header. As is, we do not have sufficient consensus and broad enough overview for such an immediate drastic measure. Softlavender (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support Esp. as one of the parties supports the idea. And is one iBan away from keeping the match-ball. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• An IBAN requires a commitment by both parties to honor it, if it is to be effective. Are the two users in question honoring their current IBANs? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Catflap08 essentially stopped editing in February 2016, and only just made a couple of edits recently, and Ignocrates has been indef blocked since March 2015, so it's really not possible to evaluate what you're asking for, at least in terms of recent editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Even if one of the parties is indef'd or merely stops ediing, the IBAN still applies. So the question is whether the two editors currently being discussed for an IBAN have honored their existing IBANs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support However, I think "further measures" is too vague - I'd like to see some specificity in the consequences of breaches. I'd also support a two-week block each if that was proposed. GoldenRing (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per BU Rob13. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Due to witnessing John Carter's previous wikihounding and continuous incivility. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 07:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support IBAN, plus a promise of a minimum one-month block on the first violation. I would also really like to see an additional 2-week block of John Carter to drive home that we take accusations of mental illness very seriously. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• I believe there are more than enough indications in the editor's history, possibly including the regular accusations of most anyone who disagrees with him on a somewhat regular basis of being a "stalker" in the matter leading to the ArbCom case, the inability to deal with any sort of substantive disagreement, petty vindictiveness as I have repeatedly stated, etc., are more than sufficient to indicate that the individual can be reasonably described in the ways I did. I however would have no reservations about the matter going to ArbCom. John Carter (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support IBAN - The interactions between these two editors do not demonstrate that they have the ability to co-operate without issues. Because both editors are capable of contributing to the encyclopaedia when separated, but not together, it seems logical to keep them separate and allow them to contribute without interaction. That is, ban them from interacting. I could also endorse a final warning to John Carter about personal attacks - especially on other editor's mental health status. This sort of commentary just is not an acceptable way to deal with other editors under any circumstances. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support but request fuller review of all matters concerned, as per my last comment in the section above. John Carter (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Addendum: Also support final warning to John Carter about personal attacks, especially on other editors' mental health status, particularly since he has repeated the accusations two hours ago above. Softlavender (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Addition of unsourced WP:BLP violations to several related articles

• Mladen Dolar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ljubljana school of psychoanalysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jela Krečič (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Persistent addition of unsourced and accusatory content by multiple accounts. Perhaps user blocks or page protection are necessary. Any help to remove the appearance that I'm edit warring will be appreciated. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

In their latest edit, they did source the content about the "international campaign" to http://www.sdzlp.si/mednarodni-poziv/, but it looks an awfully lot more like a post on their official website, and using Wikipedia as a means of promotion, than it does an "international campaign". TimothyJosephWood 20:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely :) I've requested temporary protection. I'm not sure it's much more than a 'cease and desist,' but-! Cheers! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 20:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Much appreciated, both of you. The edits by the IP have continued, so I've requested a block of that account. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

.99, I don't understand how the IP 'got through' the pending changes though? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 21:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: They didn't. They were waiting approval, 2601 reverted, and you accepted the revert (thus accepting the change and revert in one action). Readers saw nothing change. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Deadeye!! Cheers, NeilN that explains it. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 22:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The IP seems to have stopped, in any case I've left a warning threatening a block if they do this again and if they do then the IP should definitely be blocked. I'm not sure they entirely grasped that having a very dodgy source for something doesn't make it acceptable with regards to BLP. Hut 8.5 21:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The IP did it again this morning. I've blocked them for 48 hours. Hut 8.5 18:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Seeking additional eyes / input

During my page patrols I came across PianoKing, he's a fairly new user, attempting to create this article . I looked at it and saw that he had no sources, and rather than have it tagged for deletion, I | moved it into draft space to give him time to work on it. I also left him a note explaining what happened and why it happened and told him what he would need to do in order for this article to be kept.

To | his credit he appears to have added in sources. However, they were not linked nor cited, so I added to my original note, different paragraph, explaining in detail what he would need to do in order for his submission to be ready. He appeared to add in one more source, at the end | and then move the article back out of draft space with an edit summary stating the sources were "perfect".

I moved the article back to draft space and left him a seperate note explaining that his submission still isn't ready and to remind him that I 'd explained in detail what needed to be there, and what it should look like, and how to code it.

I'm requesting more eyes at this article and on the user. Not just because of this, but because of a second incident with this article. After I'd moved the article and tagged it as unreferenced, | a brand new user went right to this draft article and removed the tag. That's their sole edit so far. While it would be a stretch to say this was a sock, I'm beginning to wonder. At any rate, AGF assumed, if this is a new user it would be better if additional eyes were on this draft / article. Thanks ! KoshVorlon} 13:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The best way to deal with an article that seems unready for main space is to bring it to articles for deletion. It may seem severe to nominate it for deletion, but this is really the only noticeboard we have to resolve such issues. Unilaterally moving an article to draft space isn't a good idea in my opinion. I think it's better to gain consensus at AfD. With regard to the second account, it does look suspicious, but I'm inclined to wait and see what happens instead of taking immediate action. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Chemistry CCH

I was hoping I wouldn't have to start a thread here and that some admin would come along and just block this user, but it looks like I'm posting this here because it's not grabbed anyone's attention yet. The aforementioned user has created, and continues to create, quite a lot of pages on topics which already have their own article. Another user just gave them a lv. 3 warning - would appreciate admin intervention now to stop the disruption. Thank you in advance, Patient Zero^talk 15:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Notified of discussion. Patient Zero^talk 15:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but the user in question has been deleting the speedy deletion tags from articles he/she created, despite warnings not to. Meretechnicality (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I've given them a 31 hour block for disruptive editing, hopefully this gets their attention. Another concern I'm seeing is this may be a shared account in a school, which would be another violation, and may result in a longer block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Their first article Stomatal density include a chunk of copy-pasted text from a journal article, which I have tagged and removed. I suspect, given this looks like a school account, we have a school project here that are unfamiliar with our requirements. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Each section in the Stomatal density article is copypasted from a different source (with an image pasted in from a fifth, and up for deletion on Commons) - I've flagged it for speedy deletion. --McGeddon (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Articles nuked. Guy (Help!) 16:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• "CCH" is probably "C___ C___ High", so if someone can get an IP to identify the approximate location, we can probably verify this is a chemistry class account that needs to be given advice (perhaps via direct email to the school) how to approach WP school projects. --MASEM (t) 16:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, why hadn't that occurred to me? Thanks everyone for dealing with this whilst I was offline. Patient Zero^talk 16:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

UNSC Luke 1021

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

UNSC Luke has been warned many times to "stop messing around." He seems to enjoy gaslighting people, doing things that should obviously not be done, and then feigning ignorance. When it started out with his RFA, most AGF as they are supposed to, believing it to be merely a newer user that was eager. After this, and several other questionable actions at RFA, he was given a short ban (see here), and appealed it for a 1 year topic ban from RFA, asking for "one more shot" (see here). At this point too, most AGF, thinking that it was just a newer user who made a mistake. However he later admitted that the RFA was a prank. (see here), and that he wished to "game the system to see people's responses. (See here. The pranks (or serious incompetence) became more blatant, he soon after moved his talk page to a name he wished to have. (See here) he then put a joke about how you could go to his talk page from his userpage, but not the other way around. (See here). The move was quickly reverted by Floquenbeam, who, echoing the words of many other admins, told him to "stop f-ing around", (see here) he again claimed ignorance, claiming that he had no idea what he had done wrong. (See here). He later contradicted himself, saying he had tried to move the userpage, but wasn't able to. (See here.) Floquenbeam quickly pointed out that he should have clearly seen that he couldn't move it, as per the bright red letters on the top. (see here.) Floquenbeam issued him a last warning (one of the many he has been given). It again became more blatant he was trolling when he posted the entire content of the bee movie into his talk page (revision deleted per copyvio guidelines). He was swiftly warned (see here.) He again feigned total ignorance, claiming he didn't know what they were talking about (see here.) And later stating that he didn't know the entire script of a movie would be copyrighted. (See here.) I questioned if he happened to be under the influence of a mind altering substance (see here, as that seemed to be the only possible way to AGF, given the circumstances. He denied that he was under any such influence. (See here.) It has rapidly become clear that Luke is either playing long term pranks, doing stupid things and then feigning innocence for his own amusement, or is guilty of serial incompetence. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

User has been notified (see here. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Just a note, I've replaced all the mobile links above with non-mobile ones -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 15:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion (UNSC Luke 1021)

I was just about to write something over on that talk page, but I'll write it here instead : Iazyges, asking if somebody is on drugs sounds like a variant of "have you stopped beating your wife" and was not a particularly nice question to ask. However, Luke is just being far too disruptive and I believe WP:COMPETENCE is the root cause of it. I think for now we should settle for a stiff warning that any more shenanigans will be met with an indefinite block. That should do the trick. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand how it can be seen negatively, I asked it because I saw it as the only reasonable way that he could not know what he did wrong. Another reason why I brought it here is that he has been given several last warnings, only to cross the line again and be given another. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

You can add to the pile him leaving a message on The Rambling Man 's talk page to "let him know what's been going on" TRM's own talk page, and then continuing to reply even after the obvious is pointed out to him. Diffs are on Luke's talk page; I'll add them here when I'm in a better position to do so. –Grondemar 15:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The basic conversation is here Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• this puts this storm in a star fort into perspective [164], though to be fair he was not alone in this.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I can understand some of the other things I did wrong and I am sorry, but how is the possible name change of 'star fort' an issue? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

it's not wrong, but was making a mountain out of nothing (and no it was not about the move, but making an issue of how long we should wait). This (along with the fact you have (to my mind) pestered the military forum over this) just seemed to fit the pattern of treating this as a bit of a joke. As I said it put your "assertiveness" into perspective.Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Given the objections to his ban from RFA included 'he is just going to be disruptive elsewhere'... and now he is disruptive elsewhere, would an admin kindly show him the door. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• He's a young editor messing around, but also still actually trying to build up the encyclopedia in my mind. Give him a very strongly worded final warning that Wikipedia is not an internet forum to mess around on, and if something happens later, he can be blocked for either a definite or indefinite period of time. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem with that is that he has been given a very strongly worded warning by a near-dozen admins and a few other users, and had persisted. He has also already been blocked. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• For the record (and disclosure) the question which led to Luke's 8-day block was posted on my RFA. I didn't find the question particularly disruptive but I declined to comment on what happened afterwards while my RFA was open for reasons that should be obvious, but I was awfully disappointed (then and still) that it led to Dennis Brown quitting the project. Luke's variety of !innocent trolling and !gentle pushing of the community's tolerance is going to continue to cause the sort of problems that require long discussions and tedious cleanup, and he's already been warned by several users that Wikipedia is a serious endeavour, not a social experiment. I propose a one month block to prevent further disruption of this sort. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh and a filet o' fish for Iazyges for explaining with intoxication what could have been easily explained with incompatible motive. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

That's my first time getting hit with a trout, I will say that I was extremely doubtful he would say yes, regardless of if it was true. It was the only way to AGF. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• I believe we're dealing with an editor of some mixed interest here; that is sort of here sort of not here. I think he is both "having fun" and trying to contribute, but, with some competence issues. We always have options. Would WP:MENTORSHIP be suitable? rather than an indef block. Is anybody willing to mentor UNSC Luke, and more importantly, is Luke willing to undergo mentorship? Mr rnddude (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I am very doubtful they will, some of our best admins warned him many times, some even going out of their way to help when it was quite obvious he knew what he did wrong. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude:@Iazyges:, I would be extremely willing to undergo mentorship if that would solve the problem. I'm not joking, I don't like to cause problems and I am sorry for what I've done. I'll do whatever you recommend I do, but I actually like to contribute to articles and I especially like adding new content that wouldn't be there if not for my additions. I'll undergo mentoring whenever you want but I really don't want to be banned because I like the site and don't want to fall into the horrible world of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry just to continue editing a lot. In fact, I'll stay away from anything non-mainspace entirely if you want. I'll only leave the mainspace when notifying users of edit reversions or vandalism. I swear. I will not object to a permanent ban if I break this promise. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

May I kindly suggest, that if you are given a temporary block of any length, that you swear off the idea of sockpuppetry right now. Most editors will take grave exception to the suggestion that you will take up sockpuppetry to continue editing the encyclopaedia instead of accepting the block and returning once it has been lifted. At this moment it appears that consensus is leaning towards a 1 month block. I am going to sleep and will respond further tomorrow. Apologies that there will be a delay. You caught me on the tail end of my wakefulness. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I was not trying to use sockpuppetry as leverage but rather as supporting information and for that reason I will not accept this offer unless a different trade off is thought up as to what I will do on my part. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

User:UNSC Luke 1021 I will be brutally honest with you. I, and probably many others, don't believe you. I was there when you asked for a second chance after getting banned, you then got 3 more warnings (Moving talk page, harassment, and copyvio). It would seem to me that you will never actually follow through. You had mentorship, patient zero was more than patient with you, offering advice and assuming good faith to the point I honestly worried about him (believe he is male, could be wrong). You have driven away a very valued editor with your empty promises. For these reasons I am doubtful that any significant number of people believe you want to change. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I will also add that your statement of not wanting to fall into the world of sock puppetry sounds like a threat. I would recommend you remove it if you want anyone to try and support or mentor you. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, and I can understand why nobody would believe me. I played games in the past and screwed with the system as well as with people. I understand that the sockpuppetry thing can sound like a threat despite it having a different intent. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Site Ban - This user admits that he is playing games, trying to take advantage of our assumption of good faith, and has been warned. Occasionally the Wikipedia community is too patient. (That's also the case with a few open cases above, but this is this and they are that.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• I could 'support a one month block for disruptive editing as a sanction to let him reflect. I'm opposed to anything indefinite or a site ban. Mentorship would be the best option, and I would prefer that, but if consensus could be developed around a one month block I would not oppose it. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Another editor once said "AGF is not a suicide pact" in reference to just this sort of situation (would link if I could remember where that was written). Still, I think that Luke probably can reform but needs a pretty clear message that the community is fed up with their games. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Link is Wikipedia:Our social policies are not a suicide pact. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh it was Jimbo who said it. Some other editor indeed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• So lets get this right, his contribution are so valuable that leniency towards him has driven experienced eds (and admins?) away?Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• WP:Our social policies are not a suicide pactSlatersteven (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support indefinite site ban. There have been about 20 last warnings. Making that number 21 won't do anything. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 16:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Site Ban - I'm usually all for second, third and even fourth chances however this is just ridiculous!, I don't know if they're trolling or whether it's just incompetence but either way warnings and blocking temporarily don't and won't work - I believe somewhere on the site (as noted above) he did state now he was banned from RFA he was gonna disrupt elsewhere instead which at the moment he's staying true to his word on, Enough of the communities time has been wasted on them and wasting more (by mentoring, last warnings, temp blocks etc) will be a waste of time. –Davey2010^Talk 16:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Davey2010: please could you provide a diff where Luke "did state now he was banned from RFA he was gonna disrupt elsewhere". If such a diff is not available, you should strike the claim, as accusations without evidence are not helpful, especially in this forum. A person making a specific statement that they are intentionally going to disrupt the encyclopedia (as opposed to just showing obvious competence issues and repeated silliness) is a very serious claim, in fact it's one of the most serious claims that can be made as regards to an editor's intentions towards the project. MPS1992 (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Hi MPS1992, I'm 97% sure it was said however I couldn't say where or when it was said so I've unstruck, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 19:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Seeing that this is going the way of some sort of sanction, and that a definite final warning is looking unlikely, I believe a one month block would be more appropriate. I struggle to understand how the editor believes their actions are correct, and every little incident makes WP:CIR more and more applicable but I hope that a "line in the sand" can be drawn. Of course, any further disruption after this block would be met with an indef -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 16:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

A line in the sand/Last warning has been issued by: Floquenbeam, Grondemar, Ramaksoud2000, and myself. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Disappointing to see sock-puppetry was considered - please consider my proposal for a temporary block retracted. Luke - read my email thoroughly, we'll see how this thread goes and take it from there. I'm not sure if there's anything you can say now which will change people's minds -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 20:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• I don't normally like supporting any proposal to block editors who show any sign of good-faith editing, however whilst I can't quite bring myself to support an indef block, I do think (bearing in mind the claimed age of the user appears to be relatively young) perhaps that a one-month block combined with a supportive message on their Talk explaining the rationale, and what not to do once unblocked, will get the message across without alienating Luke from the project completely, which would be a shame (albeit I'd reluctantly support an indef block if there's further disruption after this one). Mike1901 (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support one month block per Samtar. I was open to this above, but might as well formalize it. I am still very much opposed to an indef block or site ban at this time. If a one month block happens and they continue being disruptive after that, indef is the way to go, but I don't think it is now. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support site ban okay, yeah, all but saying that he would sock if blocked makes me feel like a fool for trying to assume good faith here. I really don't know a worse possible way to respond to this. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• I hate to say this, but support site ban, per "AGF is not a suicide pact". At least I bleeping tried. Now he's testing everyone. I'm all up for multiple chances, and I know he's young - but his behaviour is getting to the point where he can't be helped or guided down a different path. I tried to get him into AV work, and now I feel as if I've completely wasted my time. God, I assumed good faith to the point where I'm sure most people thought I was completely insane to do so. I've given up trying. rant over, sorry if this looks like my feelings got the better of me. But good grief. Patient Zero^talk 17:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand, you did some truly commendable work in trying to mentor him, but sometime people will just not change. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Iazyges, I appreciate that. You're right, some people don't change, no matter what we do to try and help them. Patient Zero^talk 17:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Floq's proposal looks good, but I don't like the suggestion of only blocking him for two weeks. He's already been blocked for WP:DE, and he tested Dennis' patience to the point where he quit. Something more serious needs to be done. I get the comments about his age - he claims to be a high-schooler, which suggests to me that he is between one and three years younger than me - but even us young editors can be mature and act like adults, on a website designed mainly for them. He's had too many chances; he we can always let him apply "parole" that is the Standard Offer, in six months' time, if need be. TLDR version: I still stand by my comments in which I said I would support a site ban. Patient Zero^talk 09:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

As I read the post where the user quite he seemed more exasperated at the leniency being shown towards UNSC. As much as (if not more so) the the users actions. Yes it was this case that drove him away, but it was the actions of over protective admins (and UNSC is not alone it getting this kind of treatment) that was the issue.

Soapboxing alert

Maybe some admins (not just in this case) need to look at how they protect and nurture bad behavior. Each time users like UNHC get away with it another user thinks they can, there is a knock on effect.Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support six-month block. I don't think, based on the previous 8 day block related to RFA, that one month is long enough to send the right message. I think an indefinite block or site ban is too harsh despite everything. If the consensus is to ban Luke, I'd like there to be a provision where he can appeal in six months. Maybe after another school semester Luke will be ready to return with a little more maturity. If not, we can always ban him then. –Grondemar 17:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support indef. Responding to this thread by threatening sockpuppetry if blocked? Enough time has been wasted on Luke's trolling. Goodbye. –Grondemar 18:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Confirming that I still support an indefinite block despite the withdrawal of the socking threat. I think a formal site ban—requiring community consensus to revoke—is overkill, although I can see the rationale. There is merit in some of Floquenbeam's suggestions or the idea of mentorship, although I think these should come after a minimum of six months away from the project, and only as conditional to an administrator lifting the indefinite block. –Grondemar 23:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef on the understanding that if he successfully appeals, any goofing around on his return will lead to a permanent community ban. I was the one who mare the topic-banning him from one area will just mean he goes and disrupts something else comment referenced above, and this is exactly what has come to pass. (You can add his ramblings at WP:ITN/C to the list as well.) If he actually has something useful to bring, it's more than outweighed by now both cleaning up the messes he makes, and calming down frayed tempers owing to his trolling. (If he's not trolling, his competence issues are severe enough that we don't want him.) ‑ Iridescent 18:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Site ban - Every possible route of reconciliation has been exhausted.--WaltCip (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Did they really just threaten to sock? That should be an automatic indef block similar to Wikipedia:No legal threats.--WaltCip (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

User:WaltCip he has retracted it. Wether it is still punishable is above my pay grade. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support indef. Indefinite does not mean infinite; it's actually more open to appeal than a timed block, if and when he decides to participate positively. Trolling RfA is not a good sign; he's had several final warnings and one block; he even exhausted Dennis Brown's patience. Enough is enough, but I can't support a ban. Who knows what he'll be like in 6 months? People can change. But he will need to demonstrate that he has. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Site ban I've had questions about this editor for a while, and it appears that they simply don't have the mindset, or the maturity to work collaboratively. This comment here: "I like the site and don't want to fall into the horrible world of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry just to continue editing." clinches it for me. Maybe the WP:SO down the line, maybe, but for now, no this has to stop and stop for good. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Indef or 1 year site ban I came across this editor when they were very new and trying to do NPP. They had some problems but I felt they were genuinely interested in the project and willing to learn. Since then their talk page has been on my watchlist and I have seen them 'screw around' and apologize time after time. This editor either is trolling or, in my opinion, rather young and simply not mature enough to realize the disruption their inappropriate behavior is causing. Because of this I would be willing to see them have a 1 year time limited ban in case they just need some time to mature. This is contingent on them retracting the implication they made that they would SOCK if banned or blocked. I am firmly opposed to another "final warning" - they have had more than enough of those. Jbh^Talk 19:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC) Last edited: So they have a better chance of getting acceptance for the mentoring proposal below once they have taken a few months off. 02:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Notice from User in Question - I am sorry for what I said. I was not trying to use sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry as a threat or as leverage but rather as a... I don't even know. I am not going to sock should I get banned. I will not sock if I get banned. I was a fool and a shithead to say that and I'll stop making comments now. I'll let this thing run it's course and I won't make anymore controversial statements. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @UNSC Luke 1021: I see you removed your socking "threat" [165] by removing the text from your comment. You should replace the text and strike through it using <s></s> so people who read this thread know what everyone was discussing. See WP:REDACT. Jbh^Talk 19:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• 3 month block. The silliness and over-excited testing of boundaries has got out of hand, and is disrupting other editors' work. A site ban or indefinite block seems disproportionate; as thoughtfully noted by another editor above, the editor clearly does have constructive contributions to make, and intention to help, just is not managing it well at the moment. Willingness to undergo mentoring is also a positive sign, and I am sure something could be arranged after a 3 month break to take on board that this is a serious project not a playground. A disproportionate remedy here as a sort of "revenge" for the decisions of another user after an incident where Luke was involved, is -- quite obviously -- not appropriate. MPS1992 (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

He has already had mentorship, as mentioned above several admins and experienced users went out of their way to help him. I'm confused as to your last bit, what decision and user are you referring to? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, how long was the mentorship allowed to proceed before expecting results? From his talk page I can see a couple of mentions of emails being sent that he hadn't seen yet because he was at school, is that what you had in mind? The user I had in mind was Dennis Brown, mentioned specifically by two of the users proposing sanctions above, and perhaps in the minds of many of the others. Although I too have great admiration for Dennis' work, I really don't think that Dennis is the sort of person who would be made happier with the project just because some other user got banned. MPS1992 (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Well: the socking threat- such as it was- has been revoked; with quite a mature comment. The cynics will perhaps point to more gaslighting. But- this seems a shame. After all, second ninth chances are at home here here if nowhere else. I'm just thinking of [will remain unnamed] who have pushed the envelope far deeper than this, and yet we still rejoice in their presence (or, at least, have done for longer!). I'm sure there is potential. Although of course finding it- is another page. I think I'd urge discretion in any award of punishment here. But. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 19:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support site ban until they grow up and show some maturity. Constantly final warning them without consequence is like telling your naughty child "you better behave or else" without the "or else" ever happening. Blackmane (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• 6 month block This is a cryin' shame, because Luke can be a very productive editor. Unfortunately Luke has exhausted all patience, and it is glaringly obvious that "final warning" after final warning doesn't work. I don't support a longer block because of Luke's age, and this is sufficient time to be preventive in the long-term as 6 months is a lot longer at his age than it is at mine. Upon first violation of the Luke's block, this should be turned into an immediate site-ban. If Luke completes the "time-out" without issue, his return should be on probation in that that any instance of "social experimentation" within 1-year of his return should also result in a site-ban. This is not intended to be punitive, it is intended to clearly demonstrate to Luke that his actions have resulted in him being a net-negative, and that we want him here, but only as a productive, trustworthy participant. He can demonstrate his trustworthyness by leaving the project in peace for 6 months. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef or site ban. People have given him enough benefit of the doubt, in fact far more than most receive and by better editors than most receive. There's a deliberate sense of mischief here, especially as he went pretty quickly for the areas of Wikipedia that are very obviously not good places for a newbie to start out, like SPI and RfA. Many aren't even aware that they exist. To be very honest, this gives me the impression that this isn't their first time on here and that they likely made edits under another account prior to this or at the very least, under an IP. The amount of new accounts that go to RfA immediately are very few and far between and the ones that do typically write up something that's maybe a sentence or two long, even with other RfAs to draw from. To see someone at SPI is far less common, enough to where I can't think of any cases where a new user got involved with SPI and wasn't an obvious sockpuppet. While the RfA from November has been deleted, the answers to his questions give off a better understanding of policy than most newbie editors have - and this was after he really began editing in September 2016. The bottom line of this is that I just can't believe their claims that they didn't know any better because their actions show that they should know better and they just don't care. They've said and done several things that show that they are at least passing aware of policy, as remarks about creating a sock or meatpuppet shows that he's looked at the policy page enough to know what this is... and yet still made the comment. His familiarity with other parts of Wikipedia makes it even harder to believe that he wouldn't already know that it's a bad idea to cut/paste an entire film script to anywhere on Wikipedia, especially as there's no actual need for this material anywhere and falls hard into WP:NOT territory.

He's been given so much benefit of the doubt that I honestly have to question whether or not he'd mature enough in a year to give him the WP:SO, given that he's had people try to work with him and he just turns around and breaks more rules. He's young, but a high school aged person is old enough to know better than to keep making mistakes like this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support indefper Tokyogirl79. He's not being productive or mature. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Indef block/site ban, which can be appealed in 12 months. I hate to be this hard, but I've come across young people like this multiple times. When warned/blocked/etc, they repeatedly promise to behave, but keep on breaking their promises - he's simply saying what he thinks will get him out of his immediate trouble every time. A year from now, we might see sufficiently improved maturity, though I have my doubts - but I think we need to offer something. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

  I meant to add that I think Tokyogirl79 sums it up very well. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

  I'm temporarily withdrawing my recommendation until I have a think through Floquenbeam's suggestion, below. I'd like to see some response from Luke to it too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose to any "site ban" or "indef block" however Support block of up to 3 months - We have veteran editors who have given us far more trouble than Luke has and who have received far lesser penalties (in some cases none whatsoever). They will remain nameless, though, much like FIM has done above. I can understand the push for a block, even a longer block of up to 6 months. But I don't understand the cavalier attitude displayed about handing down a site ban to an editor who has in fact improved the encyclopaedia with the assistance of others - Battle of Raseiniai and Astroneer. For me; RfA is not the encyclopaedia, Wikipedia space is not the encyclopaedia, your user and user talk pages are not the encyclopaedia, etc, etc. The encyclopaedia is in my opinion, "article space" only. The other areas are necessary, but, they do not contribute in and of themselves to the encyclopaedia. The single most damning issue I've seen above is a single, albeit significant, copyright violation on UNSC's user page. Many of the above say that AGF is not a suicide pact, but, I don't need to AGF here at all. There's nothing to AGF about. Luke has caused issues that have wasted community time and resources and should be sanctioned. 3 months is more than enough. How nice a block log would this be? 8 day block reversed after less than 48 hours followed by an indefinite block or better yet community ban with WP:SO as the only chance of parole. But I cannot support a short block -> community ban escalation based on the evidence presented above. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment; I support Floquenbeam's proposal below and think this would make a good set of boundaries to keep Luke in check. That said, at least a 1 month block is in order for all of the foolishness and mucking about. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Without prejudice to the merits of an indef ban based on repeated disruptive behavior, I am bothered by the vast majority of rationales for an indef block/site ban being based on the contributor's age. Punishing an editor based on assumptions of age and maturity is a bad look to younger contributors. We're not parents.--WaltCip (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone is actually supporting a sanction because of his age, but because of his behaviour - and noting that his age is a factor in that behaviour. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support indef or site ban per Tokyogirl's excellent disquisition. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support indefinite site ban as first choice. In order of preference after that, I also support an indefinite block or a lengthy block. This has gone far beyond mentorship or a cool-down period. This is an editor who was so disruptive at RfA that we had to ban them from the area. He's then decided to disrupt other aspects of the project, most recently by posting obviously copyrighted material to his user page in full. Even if that weren't a legal issue, why would he post the full script of the Bee Movie to a userspace? WP:NOTWEBHOST, obviously. He is clearly not here to contribute, and the community is sick of dealing with this area by area. He has posted the following quote on his user page, "Born too late to explore the Earth, born too early to explore the stars, born just in time to explore dank memes...". If that doesn't make clear that he's a troll, I don't know what will. He can go post dank memes elsewhere. The threat of the sockpuppetry would be the final nail in the coffin if not for the coffin being absolutely covered in nails already. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

[166] I'm not sure what we put on our User Pages usually gets used against us, does it, with the exception of (recently, and rightly) Nazi dog-whistles, for instance. We do have tight leashes in the armoury, people. Use them, why not? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 21:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

We applied a tight leash at the last ANI by topic banning them from one area and warning them that further disruption would likely result in further sanctions. When a tight leash doesn't work, we also have a muzzle. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support site ban as we've all had enough of this. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support site ban This has gone on far too long. I see no reliable statement from this "editor" that they will change. Based on past experience, they will apologise and then continue the disruption to the project. David J Johnson (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• OK, as one of several who gave final warnings, I'll comment here:
  • I'm going to mention several times below that I'm pretty sure he's young. That's not to be dismissive or mean, it's just an explanation for behavior that would otherwise be attributable to darker motives.
  • Adding the Bee Movie script is not out-of-left-field crazy; according to my own kids, it's apparently a thing kids do (Google "Bee Movie memes". And then weep about our future). I can imagine a kid doing this, thinking it's funny, without thinking too much about copyright, when he sees others doing it. So this is probably not evidence of outright trolling. It's just evidence, after many, many previous actions, of poor judgement.
  • Talk of a true site ban seems like a severe over-reaction. Reasonable if he had no redeeming traits, but I don't think that's the case. There's a decent chance of a salvage operation here.
  • Talk of giving yet another final warning is a severe under-reaction. I gave a pretty clear one, and it wasn't understood.
  • I suggest a 2 week block. To firmly grasp the attention. And no unblocks after a few days if there's a "you've firmly grasped my attention" unblock request. A hard 2 weeks. Long enough to be painful, short enough to not encourage bad ideas.
  • Followed by a 3 month ban on non-article related edits. So the following would be OK: articles, talk pages, Wikiproject pages about articles (like, for example, WP:MILHIST and WP:TANKS, his own talk page. The following would not be OK: ANI, RFA (well, already done), XFD, Main page discussions, Wikiproject pages where he gets involved in arguments, etc.
  • While it seems mean-spirited, I suggest a ban on editing his userpage too. My hope would be to instill good habits, so that when the 3 month ban is over, there's no desire to go back to his old ways. If he really sticks to this, he'll have a decent reputation as a content builder at the end of the 3 months. Reputation is important, I would hope he wouldn't want to risk it doing something stupid on his user page at the beginning of month 4.
  • If he can find a mentor, great. Not sure that should be required, but it should be encouraged.
  • Kids mature quickly, so this isn't completely Polyanna-ish. I really have seen young users I was a hair's breath away from blocking indef change their ways once it became clear that fun time was over. Not all of them, not even most of them, but enough to know that there's a reasonable chance of success.
  • If problems resume after 3 months, or if problems begin on the pages they're allowed to edit during the 3 months, then cut bait.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, I don't think any attention should be paid to his age. If an editor can't get with the program for whatever reason, despite endless mentoring and final warnings, then that's it. I don't know of a kinder way to put this, but this isn't a daycare. If it would be unacceptable for you to behave in this manner and waste everyone's time, then it's unacceptable for Luke. And if you want to pay attention to his age, then two weeks or 3 months or even 6 months is certainly not enough time to grow up. In a few years, if he matures, then he can always appeal. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that was my feeling as well, that 3, 6 or 12 months were really relatively short times for the basic editing philosophy of this person to change, so it was much better to go indef and to allow them to make a showing of any change in whatever time period it occurs in. Plenty of WP:ROPE has been given, I think. If it hadn't, I would be more amenable to Flo's suggestion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam:, I like this idea. I'd be perfectly fine with being banned from non-article and possibly talk pages for said articles, because that's the source of the problem. I'd also be ok with receiving a two to four week ban if it solves problems. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Proposal I'm willing to offer mentoring. It'll be our way or the highway, as they say. Much more straitened than usual. In the knowledge that all these AGF privileges have just been used up. Any movement from the path- no further A N I possible; plenty of admins have already spoken their minds. They'll be queuing up to block indef if it goes mushroom shaped. Community? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 22:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

  @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: what form would this mentoring take? As near as I can see 'don't do stupid shit' is a tough mentoring goal. I like the idea by Floquenbeam above. Would that be something you would consider integrating into your plan? I think the hump that must be overcome is that Luke does not seem to have developed the maturity to know what it means to keep one's word, at least not once the threat of impending sanction is removed.

  I would be willing to support some sort of remediation/mentoring program since I think he can grow into a net positive but it would be well defined and, I firmly believe, it should follow a minimum of a one month block. He has been repeatedly threatened with sanctions and so far the only thing he has learned is that he can avoid them by apologizing and then goes on to do something inappropriate a week or so later. Jbh^Talk 23:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: Yes, very much along Floquenbeam's suggestion. The difference between this and the previous mentoring is that this is would be from within, as it were, the last chance saloon, as we say. And that would be made clear: the slightest fuck-up, and there's no drawn-out AN/I cases, no lengthy discussions, and no appeals. Anyone queuing up here to report / block them will have them spinning out the door so fast their feet won't touch. This is all notwithstanding, and without prejudice to, any other decision the community might make here; but if this is taken up, I would want a punishment already signed and sealed, so there is absolutely no doubt as to the consequences of non-improvement. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 14:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: If something like that can be worked out with UNSC Luke 1021 I will support it although, based on the number of editors who are exhausted with their behavior, I think it is unlikely they will escape an indef block. Possibly they could be encouraged to include the mentoring plan, if you would still be willing to take it on, as part of an appeal in a couple of months. If they do so and I do not notice it please ping me and I will chime in there. Jbh^Talk 21:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• last chance I see the virtue in an immediate indef. It makes life easier for the rest of us. However, in fairness to Luke, I'd much prefer to see a WP:ROPE serious last chance warning. We can always block later, if needed.

I'm totally against all the WP:COOLDOWN block ideas. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support indef block (which, as we know, is not infinite). When an editor turns into a timesink like this, it's time to get back to improving the 'pedia. Miniapolis 23:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• To those of you who object to a indef/site ban due to his contributions, a simple break down: 50% are to user talk, talk, and wikipedia talk, 5% are to user, 22% is to wikipedia. Only 23% is to mainspace. I will comment that that is exceptionally low for someone who is here to build an encyclopedia. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• 3 month block, followed by the same restrictions in Floquenbeam's proposal (but with longer timeframes). My gut reaction is indef and be done with it, but I'm moved by the desire to assume yet more good faith - or perhaps it's give an even longer quantity of rope. I'm solidly un-moved by the fact that he redacted his socking threats, his MO seems to be do or say something outlandish, and when called on it either feign ignorance or say that it was a joke. That reminds me of someone else, and not in a good way (should there be a good way for that association to be made). Based on the socking comments, I think that Floquenbeam's timeline is too lenient, and a lengthier block will possibly provide evidence as to if he really meant that he would sock. PGWG (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support site ban — Trolls don't change. They're in it for the lulz, and responsible contributing does not provide any laughs. He's been given multiple, multiple opportunities already, taking up enormous amounts of other editors' time. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support Site Ban as first choice, second choice is indeff block. This user has become a time sink for the community and is clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. We really need to stop feeding his behavior and just take away his toy and be done with it. He's had his rope and has exhausted the community's patience. Best case Luke fails WP:CIR, worst case (and unfortunately more likely) they are goading the community for a reaction which they blatantly admit to. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support Floquenbeam's proposal, which offers a good prospect of addressing the disruption while giving the user an opportunity to show if he can be a productive editor. Neljack (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support Indef with site ban as second choice (since my door comment above was not too specific) - an Indef is easier to come back from and they might actually grow up a bit in the meantime - they are capable of good editing, they just choose not to too often. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• I'm not sure I've yet decided what the appropriate response should be here, but I oppose a site ban. We site ban the worst of the worst, not someone who acts childish from time to time. Sam Walton (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Voluntary three month site ban and subsequent mentoring.UNSC Luke 1021.This is a kind of tipping point for you. Frankly at this point community trust regarding you is hemorrhaging away. Considering your potential future value to the project (I have seen your good work on MILHIST) this is a potential net loss to the project. However your behaviour has been highly damaging to your reputation, as is shown in numerous comments above. I would suggest that a voluntary break from WP, returning at an agreed time to take up a Last chance saloon mentoring agreement, as offered by O Fortuna! would do much to restore long-term faith in you by the community. It also would show self discipline. If you are found to be socking in that period, a permanent site ban can only follow. Pull yourself together Luke, basically. I think you are WP:HERE, but at this stage you must take urgent steps. Only you can agree to this, with community agreement. Irondome (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support Floquenbeam's idea - last chance. I've only noticed this editor through a bizarre comment made on WP:ITN/C, but looking at some of the diffs I'll go with that. As someone who works in education, young people do mature and change very quickly. Black Kite (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef/site ban. We're lucky that this kid has stuck to disrupting user and project space, let's nip it in the bud before it gets worse. If he wishes to come back in the future, when he's more mature, there's always WP:Standard offer. ansh666 01:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Long-ish, but not indef, block - Not sure whether 1 or 3 or 6 or 12 months is the ideal, but the odds are that such a slap in the face will be enough. No matter the age, emotional maturity is clearly lacking; I think the previous warnings were dismissed as "individuals that don't like me"; a block longer than a month, imposed by community consensus, cannot be ignored similarly. (Notice that the only previous block was 8 days, and replaced by a topic ban) Of course, when/if they return, the indef will be flying circles around their head anyways, so the time lost if the worse-case scenario will be negligible. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 20:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed remedy

moot
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
We need to move to a close here or it will go on forever. Can we have a straw poll please on the following: There is generally shared opinion that this is a young user who, given time, may grow out of their irrational behaviour. There is unanimous consensus that UNSC Luke 1021 is seriously disruptive and must be stopped. There are varying suggestions of severity for recommended preventative measures and also offers of mentoring. Site ban means an indef block anyway while there are fewer calls for the ban than the block. Taking the arguments for milder measures into consideration, I'm suggesting: Indefinite block for 12 months; request for unblock after 6 months (WP:Standard offer) under condition of mentoring. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC) Support Oppose Andy Dingley (talk) 09:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC) Final chance warning, no other action at this time. I do not wish to create an "outlaw". I do not believe that "cooldown" would help. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC) Support Andy Dingley (talk) 09:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC) Oppose

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Admin-opinion request on canvassing issue

At Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#"Lists" vs. prose about lists, an editor notified cherrypicked editors without any objective criteria as directed at WP:CAN, such as "Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article" or "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)." After being asked twice for what criteria was used, this editor responded here that no explanation is required nor will any be given. The notice itself was neutral, but since this editor cherrypicked the editors to notify, it clearly seems like vote-stacking. If someone might take the time to see the canvassing concerns near the end of the discussion, beginning at 02:43, 16 January 2017, it would be much appreciated. The editor was made aware I was seeking an admin opinion. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Teenage Fairytale Dropouts vandal

Question: All known recent IPs used by the TFD vandal have been in the 49.197.*.* range. Is there any indication that a rangeblock would cause collateral damage? Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 22:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Here are the range calculations. I haven't done any digging, just inputted the information into the range calculator. A few check users or administrators that are familiar with range blocks might want to take a look. I'll do a bit of analysis myself when I get the chance. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 23:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

IP Range Calculations--Cameron11598 (Talk) 23:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorted 17 IPv4 addresses: 49.197.43.108 49.197.109.103 49.197.113.179 49.197.115.94 49.197.117.111 49.197.117.242 49.197.119.36 49.197.119.92 49.197.121.213 49.197.122.139 49.197.122.176 49.197.182.154 49.197.184.15 49.197.189.203 49.197.199.230 49.197.208.229 49.197.215.162 Total affected Affected addresses Given addresses Range Contribs 64K 65536 17 49.197.0.0/16 contribs 20K 1 1 49.197.43.108 contribs 8192 10 49.197.96.0/19 contribs 4096 3 49.197.176.0/20 contribs 8192 3 49.197.192.0/19 contribs 8196 1 1 49.197.43.108 contribs 1 1 49.197.109.103 contribs 4096 9 49.197.112.0/20 contribs 1 1 49.197.182.154 contribs 2048 2 49.197.184.0/21 contribs 1 1 49.197.199.230 contribs 2048 2 49.197.208.0/21 contribs 3080 1 1 49.197.43.108 contribs 1 1 49.197.109.103 contribs 2048 6 49.197.112.0/21 contribs 1024 3 49.197.120.0/22 contribs 1 1 49.197.182.154 contribs 1 1 49.197.184.15 contribs 1 1 49.197.189.203 contribs 1 1 49.197.199.230 contribs 1 1 49.197.208.229 contribs 1 1 49.197.215.162 contribs 459 1 1 49.197.43.108 contribs 1 1 49.197.109.103 contribs 1 1 49.197.113.179 contribs 1 1 49.197.115.94 contribs 256 2 49.197.117.0/24 contribs 128 2 49.197.119.0/25 contribs 1 1 49.197.121.213 contribs 64 2 49.197.122.128/26 contribs 1 1 49.197.182.154 contribs 1 1 49.197.184.15 contribs 1 1 49.197.189.203 contribs 1 1 49.197.199.230 contribs 1 1 49.197.208.229 contribs 1 1 49.197.215.162 contribs 17 1 1 49.197.43.108 contribs 1 1 49.197.109.103 contribs 1 1 49.197.113.179 contribs 1 1 49.197.115.94 contribs 1 1 49.197.117.111 contribs 1 1 49.197.117.242 contribs 1 1 49.197.119.36 contribs 1 1 49.197.119.92 contribs 1 1 49.197.121.213 contribs 1 1 49.197.122.139 contribs 1 1 49.197.122.176 contribs 1 1 49.197.182.154 contribs 1 1 49.197.184.15 contribs 1 1 49.197.189.203 contribs 1 1 49.197.199.230 contribs 1 1 49.197.208.229 contribs 1 1 49.197.215.162 contribs

From what I can see it would require a /16, which would do a little bit of collateral damage. It might be block able for a short period (if absolutely necessary) but I would advocate against a long term block of the range. Ping KrakatoaKatie, Bbb23 or any other CU for a second opinion. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 03:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Alternatively, if it's really a very disruptive LTA editor, we could see if the WMF would be willing to contact their ISP about abuse coming from their network. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Ping @Kbrown (WMF): & @Jalexander-WMF: would this be doable? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Possibly dynamic Serbian IPs removing reference from multiple articles

Two Belgrade-based Serbian IPs, 178.221.137.49 and 178.223.93.49 (both of which are effectively WP:SPAs) have been targeting articles that use a book by Philip J. Cohen, ‘’ Serbia’s Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History’’, deleting it as a reference and citations to it and disparaging it and the author in edit summaries. As can be seen from Talk:Philip J. Cohen, this book is critical of collaborationist Serbs during World War II, and has been attacked by some Serbian sources ever since it was published. However, I believe it contains material that is of benefit to the encyclopaedia, and this material shouldn't be deleted by editors because they don’t agree with it. This all began after I AfD’d an article on a vocal blogger critic of Cohen, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Kosta Savich and also posted a RfC at Talk:Banjica concentration camp to establish the reliability of Cohen for use on that article after another Serbia-based IP had dismissed it on talk. Banjica concentration camp was at least partially run by Serbian collaborators. First 178.221.137.49 deleted Cohen from Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia here, which I reverted on the basis that while it was BOLD, there was a RfC about Cohen ongoing (which they had already contributed to) and they should wait for the RfC to close before taking such action. I tried to engage them on their talk page, here. However, they deleted it again. I then issued an ARBMAC warning. The deletion was subsequently reverted by another user.

Next, 178.223.93.49 deleted Cohen from the articles on Nikolaj Velimirović, Lazo M. Kostić, and Kosta Kumanudi, all figures associated with Serbian collaboration during World War II. I reverted these removals, but 178.223.93.49 reverted them. 178.223.93.49 also deleted Cohen from List of Serb countries and regions. Obviously I have left them as is for now, but the pattern that is appearing concerns me.

These deletions, almost certainly by the same person, occurring while an RfC about the reliability of Cohen is ongoing, is clearly disruptive and disrespectful towards our community dispute resolution processes. Obviously I am involved, and any further warnings from me appear unlikely to be heeded, so I am asking if an uninvolved admin will warn the users to stop this deletion of Cohen from articles and tell them to wait for the outcome of the RfC on the reliability of Cohen. There are other IP and registered SPAs (likely meatpuppets) appearing on the RfC and elsewhere around this subject, but these two are the obviously related ones causing the most disruption. I've notified both IPs. Thanks for your time looking at this. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that this is Vujkovica brdo (talk · contribs), who exhibited similar relentless behavior of removing all content referenced to sources he doesn't like [167][168], see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Špiro Kulišić, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josip Pečarić mainly in the field of mathematics but also in articles about Serbian and Croatian history. The article B. Wongar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) provides the obvious link, both 178.223.93.49 and Vujkovica brdo editing the article about an obscure Australian anthropologist. While this does not fall under sockpuppeting category (Vujkovica brdo retired in November), it does show a long-standing pattern of disruption. While he often does have a point on the matters of content (he does have a point about Cohen, IMO), he goes about it in so belligerent manner that it inevitably ends up in conflict and disruption. No such user (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I encourage you to have your say about Cohen at the RfC. Thanks for the heads-up about Vujkovica brdo. If it is Vujkovica brdo (and the similar editing on B. Wongar – which has only nine pagewatchers – seals the deal for me), he had been warned three times for edit warring and WP:OWN in the week prior to his "retirement" in mid-November here, here, and here, so edit warring now using IPs is a clear attempt to evade scrutiny of past behaviours, which is prohibited by WP:Clean start. The editors that warned him were @Joel B. Lewis, David Eppstein, and Arthur Rubin:, so they might have a view on this. Would a narrow rangeblock pick up both IPs without too much collateral damage? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

My interest in Vb's edits is connected only to his work on mathematics, not on Serbian history, so I have no informed opinion on the current dispute. But I do have the general impression that Vb knows how to evade rangeblocks. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The two IPs have stopped since being notified of this thread, but a new account KanteP has just appeared to start edit warring deleting Cohen from articles here, here and here on the Judenfrei article, and making wholesale deletions of work I've recently put into Banjica concentration camp here, claiming I'm putting "too much" background into the article. When I've pointed them to another article with a similar amount of background, Kragujevac massacre (which I've also worked on recently and which is currently undergoing GAN review), they then [tagged it as too long as well and made comments on the review page about Cohen here. I have tried to reason with this "new" editor, but this is obvious trolling by someone with less than 100 edits on all wikis, who has obviously been here before, and is very disruptive when all I am trying to do is improve articles in a difficult area using reliable sources, some of which I need to translate with great pain to my brain. It has been several years since there has been this level of trolling in the Yugoslavia in WWII subject area, and I would appreciate a hand here. I've notified the new account. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

184.145.42.19

Short block by User:Gilliam for harassment (presumably of User:Garchy after [169] and note the stated intention to sock if blocked) resulted in this nasty (and declined) unblock request [170]. Since return from block has been following and reverting Garchy's edits, often with snarky comments or even outright attacks inh the edit summaries aimed at Garchy [171], [172], [173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178]. I disagree with some of the edits but some may be valid (I have not checked all of them) but the edit summaries are inappropriate and the IP continued to comment on the user in edit summaries after being warned not to [179]. Meters (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

My ANI edit conflicted with an edit warring block by User:Materialscientist. I'll leave this open for now since the IP has already stated that he will sock, and because we've already gone through one block/unblock while this was being written. Meters (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

And this block resulted in another personal attack [180] Meters (talk) 04:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

And another one [181]. We should at least remove talkpage access. Meters (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all - I just woke up to see the work that has been done. I looked at my reverts, there were a few I did hastily and which didn't need to be done (I must have gone a little overboard while reverting the disruptive edits), but then again the IP editor was a bit of a handful - I'll not revert the good ones back, and it looks like the others were handled already. Thanks again! Garchy (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

I had the pleasure to meet 69.119.168.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) because of this edit. I never had seen the page before, but someone complained on the Help Desk. Since the edit was a blatant BLP violation I (manually) reverted it and left a level-2 warning about RS (without really investigating the matter further) (there was no content on the user talk page but OTOH it was still serious enough that level 1 seemed to mild).

The editor blanked my warning with ES "I cited sources, you fool", and left an edit war warning on my talk page. I intended to politely but sternly warn them that the warning is incorrect ("repeatedly [overriding] contributions", per WP:EDITWAR, requires at least two edits), saw an empty user talk page, got suspicious, checked the TP history and lo and behold, another warning and before that this one-week block three months ago.

So, here we are. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

This is particularly lovely. That IP doesn't belong here. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Based on the pattern of edits I would suggest a long term, if not indef, ban for this IP, even taking into consideration WP:IPBLENGTH. Garchy (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked for a month. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Violations of several guidelines exhibited by a user

User:Johanprof has edited the Vladimir Putin article several times, and an outstanding edit of his, due to its summary line, is this one: [182]

He claims that "the entry has been written by an anti-Putinist which is disgusting". Now since every anti-Putinist should be allowed to edit Wikipedia, so long as their edit respects the respective guidelines and is constructive, this, in my view, violates Wikipedia:Civility and the third of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Furthermore, the edits of said user have been described as "tendentious" by other users; see User_talk:Johanprof. This would mean that said user disregarded Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Additionally, said user was engaged in edit warring; see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vladimir_Putin&action=history. --Mathmensch (talk) 09:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem is not so much the edit summary, but BLP violations which the user was determined to add to the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Massively disruptive and insupportable edits by that user on that article. Might need a page ban from the article. Softlavender (talk) 12:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• NOTE: This needs some admin attention and input. Softlavender (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism of comics articles by 107.77.*.*

This anon editor has been persistently vandalizing articles for many weeks, primarily making fraudulent claims about co-creating Spawn (comics),[183] and implicitly disparaging actual creator Todd McFarlane and certain other comics creators by referring readers to a web forum he frequents for details.[184] He evades page protections by targeting additional articles, and evades blocks by changing IP addresses, so far including 107.77.194.22, 107.77.203.11, 107.77.203.4, 107.77.204.229 (multiple warnings given on this one), 107.77.204.153, 107.77.204.185, 107.77.203.81, 107.77.203.210, 107.77.203.4 –Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Most of the affected articles seem to be semi-protected now. I'll keep an eye on the IP range for a while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

He's expanding this activity to additional related articles (Special:Contributions/107.77.194.126 17/18-January), and also now claiming to be creator of something called "Wolf Pack".[185] -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Brudger

I originally made a report at AIV but that was archived as stale so I'm bringing this here as administrator attention is still required. For almost 7 years now this editor has done nothing but insert the book he has written into articles as "cites". The fact that he has gone this long is astonishing. WP:SELFCITE aside, he is clearly only here to promote his book and to insert it in as many articles as possible. His conflict of interest is also undeclared on his user page and was only made known after he complained after one of his inserts was removed. As we are unambiguously in the realm of a promotion only account I'm asking for an admin to deal with them. Thank you. --Majora (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Citing one's own book isn't WP:VANDALISM, so it should not have been reported at AIV. He does need to stop spamming his book, though. I think we need to more closely look at where citing it belongs and where it doesn't. If the book is one of the only extant resources about an obscure subject, it can/could be OK to insert as a citation. Softlavender (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Reporting people whose only purpose here is to promote themselves is an option under the AIV module in Twinkle. So...if that isn't a form of vandalism perhaps we need to redo that (a topic for another time). The main point here is that this person's only goal, for almost seven years, is to only insert his book into articles. Period. If that isn't a violation of NOTPROMOTION I don't know what is. --Majora (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Uninvolved comment Having taken a look at this user's contributions and the exchange between them and Richard-of-Earth transcribed onto their talk page, I think this is just a simple issue of an editor who simply doesn't know how to edit. I'm not seeing anything intentionally tendentious here. I'd be happy to help Richard tutor him if that will solve the problem. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• I reviewed about 30 of their edits (approx 1/5th) and I found every single one I checked was primarily about including the editor's books into an article. I'll admit they've added some content. But there is a serious self promotion issue here. I think restricting the editor from citing themselves anymore is a reasonable action here. I was on the verge of blocking, myself.--v/r - TP 23:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Agree with TParis; looks like COI editing to me. Miniapolis 00:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd say it is a WP:NOTHERE situation, and yes, promotional/COI. At the very least at this point he should not be adding his book[s] (as citation or otherwise) to articles directly -- he should be restricted to making requests on article talk pages. At worst he should be blocked as NOTHERE and self-promotion. Softlavender (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• I feel he is here to build an encyclopedia. He adds more then he needs to add his cite. He does not need to add anything as he could add his book as a cite to material already unsourced in the articles. I would also like to point out that the articles he adds to are in need of prose. He has written at least three books in this area and perhaps several more. (It is hard to tell, his name is not that uncommon.) WP:SELFCITE is allowed and we should be thrilled to have anyone with experience writing and informed contributing to our articles. Besides he did less then 6 edits a month last year. I think we keep up with Wikifying his contributions. Hell, maybe if we are nice to him he will cite some of his sources he used for his books. Even if he doesn't, having the prose gives us something to look for to add cites. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Of course self citing is allowed. If his edits are good for the encyclopedia, what should we care what his supposed motive might be? Paul August ☎ 12:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

By the way, writing the article Alice Diamond, is certainly a useful contribution to the encyclopedia. Can we please try not to drive away useful contributors to our encyclopedia.? Please? Paul August ☎ 13:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Paul August: Ah yes, an article with questionable notability whose only sources were written by the person being discussed. "Useful" is certainly debatable. We don't allow self-promotion and it is quite clear that this person is only here to promote themselves and their book by any means necessary. --Majora (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism and ignoring warning

• 88.254.94.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) concise reason e.g. vandalised past 4th warning. 일성강 (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The account is suspicious (possibly banned Tirgil) and keep vandalising the pages with false edit summaries and deletions of sourced content. Have a look at the revision history of Turan and other articles he edited(vandalized). Thanks. 88.254.94.183 (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

He deleted a sourced content but in edit summary, he wrote that it is not sourced. After I warned him, he admitted that it is sourced but not reliable. Also please see the revision history of this article. He is vandalizing the page with false edit summaries and clearly lying. 88.254.94.183 (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

It looks like the IP editor is accusing User:일성강 of being Tirgil34 (talk · contribs), who is an LTA vandal. I don't know what's going on, but Tirgil34 apparently has a history of edit warring with his own socks, so that's something to consider. Also, the IP editor seems to have taken these socking concerns to Doug Weller's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you NinjaRobotPirate. I still doubt that this editor is suspicious and might be a new sock of that LTA vandal, but it is not only about being Tirgil or not. The user is clearly vandalizing the articles through deletion of sourced contents with false or misleading edit summaries as I showed above. He did it many times. I don't think he is here to contribute. 88.254.94.183 (talk) 07:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Don't have the energy to investigate the validity of the IP's claims in detail, but a few points to consider:

1. Both users have gone well past 3RR, so unless one of them is unambiguously vandalizing the articles in question they are both in violation.
2. NRP appears to be subtly implying that both are Tirgil34, but again I don't have the energy to check.
3. The OP's contribs to other Wikimedia projects relate almost exclusively to the genetic categorization of the Korean langauge. Unless this is a pet topic of Tirgil34 it seems unlikely they are the same person.
4. The phrase "Thank you NinjaRobotPirate" is really amusing.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't read NRP's comment thoroughly and thusly did not notice his implication. Anyway, it doesn't make sense since at the end of the day, there is no difference between pre and post edit-warring version of the article (Then what could be the purpose of that fake edit-war?) As for OP's contribs, I do not know what he did on other wikimedia projects but on en.wiki, his some contribs seem to me suspicious and also since "ascribing fictitious personalities to his socks" (and false-flag operations) is one of the habitual behaviors the LTA vandal, I thought that he might be the same user. Regarding sockpuppetry, I am less doubtfull about him now. However, as I mentioned above, this is not only about sockpuppetry. The user clearly deleted sourced content with false/misleading edit summaries. 88.254.94.183 (talk) 12:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I did not deleted sourced content. This source is a thing of interpretation. There stand written, "we MAY add as fourth branch korean and japanese", but in the articel it stand that they are always considerd as "turanian" (which is a obsolet term so i do not care anymore...). I admit that Dravidian is fully sourced and that i have made in this case a mistake, but i did not started this edid war nor do i have "other suspisious" contribs made. 일성강 (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Canvassing Opinion

An editor selectively notified editors of an AfD discussion (that was later removed by a different editor as it was incomplete) that was taking place at Talk:Isaaq_Genocide. Although the notice was neutral enough, all members the editor solicited, since they were cherry-picked by the editor, ended up supporting their view. This seems like WP:VOTESTACK to me but I would like the opinion of an admin (or other experienced editors). The soliciting posts for editor no.1 [here, and editor no.2 [here]. There were in total 3 votes supporting them, the aforementioned two solicited votes, and a third editor who, though not directly solicited as far as I can see, has self-identified as an acquaintance of the initiator of the request, you can word search this sentence in the talk page linked above: "whilst Acidsnow in particular is nothing more than an acquaintance to me." Needless to say all three editors have interacted and discussed many topics in the past and it seems to me that they would have a reasonable expectation of stances on different topics thus it appears WP:CANVAS. Many thanks. Kzl55 (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC) The user has been informed of this discussion. Kzl55 (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, there's a clear distinction between my actions and that of Kzl55. As Awale-Abdi points out, me and Soupforone have had numerous disagreements in the past (see this articles talk page as an example: here). In fact, Soupforone and I have disagreed on the vast majority of our discussions, so theirs no indication that we would agree on this matter either. In addition, I've never spoke to AlaskaLava prior to this discussion. Awale-Abdi found the article on his own and we've disagreed in the past too (see here:[186]), so stating that he is an acquaintance doesn't prove much. All three users are all well established editors and have all shown considerable knowledge one the Somali people and the wider region. One the other hand, Kzl55 sought the thoughts of individuals whom had all joined recently (most likely a coincidence), made very few edits, and had all desired to prop up the regions independence movement on Wikipedia, see: here, here, and here. This further supports why I and other users cite WP:PROPAGANDA for the Isaaq Genocide article and the rest of Kzl55 edits. I suggest that they familiarize themselves with WP:BOOMERANG.

This report is nothing more than part of a series of personal attacks that this user has made against me. These include: accusations of vandalism (see here: [187], [188], and [189]), raising the possibility of metapuppetry (see here: [190]), soliciting views (see here: [191]), and so forth. He has also made comments such as:

"much of the content the editor initiating this request works on, or is involved in edit wars over, is slanted against certain Somali groups namely the Isaaq" ~Kzl55, 20:57, 15 January 2017

"It seems to me, and this is unfortunate, that the initiator of the deletion request harbors negative sentiment against Isaaqs" ~Kzl55, 16:57, 16 January 2017

"Some groups from the Somali peninsula benefit from the dilution of an event of this magnitude, estimates ranging between 50,000-200,000 civilian deaths, and causing some 800,000 people to flee their homes. The sheer scale of this calamity is unprecedented in East Africa. This might explain why some editors are persistent in WP:VAND of the page by blanking and using redirects, and now trying to nominate it for deletion" ~Kzl55, Revision as of 16:57, 16 January 2017

"You are trying to pass off your opinion as a fact" ~Kzl55, 04:51, 17 January 2017

"your negative edits of Somaliland pages here, it is very clear and I stand by it" ~Kzl55, 16:19, 17 January 2017

I and several other users have already stated that it would be in their best interest for them to stop (see here: [192], [193], and [194]). But as we can see from here, nothing has changed. If there's an anything an admin can do about this, then let it be so. If a separate discussion is required, then I am also willing to make one AcidSnow (talk) 07:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) AfD discussions don't take place on article talk pages.(See below.)Notifying users you suspect will !vote a certain way is canvassing, but notifying a small number of experienced and ethical users who are familar with the topic and have not demonstrated a strong bias is normally acceptable. I do not know if this is what happened there, but the number of users notified was definitely small. Additionally, if someone actually does open a properly formatted AFD and you do what you apparently did there, posting massive walls of text with the effect, if not necessarily the intent, of filibustering the discussion, you will be more likely to face sanctions than the "canvassing" party. Anyway, what administrative action are you seeking? Do you just want to know if it was canvassing? If it's a simple yes/no question, the answer is yes, but it was extremely minor and if the "AfD discussion" has already ended nothing will come of it, and your own wall of text was arguably much worse than notifying two users. (Although, again, I don't know why those users were selected. You say that the notifier had previous interactions with them, but again the only way to know if someone is experienced, ethical and familiar with the topic is to have had previous interactions with them.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Kzl55 has been making numerous attacks against me as pointed out by myself and other users. I am interested in seeing if anything can be done about it. AcidSnow (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Hijiri88, just to note that the discussion was located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaaq Genocide while the alleged canvassing took place. AcidSnow hadn't used the AfD page template or listed it in the AfD log. I spotted this and the page was moved to the article talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Noted. But a significant portion of the "discussion" apparently took place after your move of the discussion to the talk page, so my point about the absurdity of it still stands (especially given the OP's an AfD discussion [...] that was taking place at Talk:Isaaq_Genocide), as does everything else about walls of text and what is considered disruptive canvassing. This assumes that, since the OP didn't present any evidence of collusion or tendentious editing, the small number of canvassed editors were selected for a valid reason. My assumption could well be wrong, but the burden is still on the OP to prove it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

How do I go about fixing this? AcidSnow (talk) 08:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@AcidSnow: Follow the step-by-step instructions at WP:AFD. If I recall correctly, they are not that difficult. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. You need to start a new AfD from scratch, AcidSnow, and hopefully this one, as well as following process, will attract concise comments rather than walls of text. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that walls of text, if posted with an apparent attempt to filibuster civil discussion and preserve the status quo by default, are severe violations. It is not clear that Kzl55 intended to filibuster that "discussion", but now that they have been warned about it here, if they do it again on a new, properly formatted AFD, you should come back here and report them. AGF is not a suicide pact: if someone persists in "good faith" disruptive behaviour after being told it is disruptive, you can report them for their disruptive behaviour. But you need to be brief as well. Very long comments tend to discourage outside input and preserve the status quo by default, so if you are seeking sanctions against someone you need to keep it as short as possible. I noticed you post some walls of text on the talk page yourself. You should know that if you want the page to be deleted, this shooting yourself in the foot, as walls of text almost always have the effect of preserving the status quo, and you were trying to argue against the status quo. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I presume that these comments are addressed to AcidSnow, not to me. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Of course. (笑) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri 88 Thank you for your reply, the point is that not only did AcidSnow committed multiple cases of vandalism (blanking via redirection) here and here, but they disruptively started an AfD despite the page being very will sourced, notable and neutral. They then solicited the opinion of other editors that they had a reasonable assumption (based on previous interactions) that they would support them, and they did end up supporting them. Having solicited only a small number, in this case two editors, is still significant as the number of editors interested in Somali topics is extremely small, so two editors constitute a large portion of regular editors interested in Somali subjects.

I am glad you agree this was a case of canvassing (albeit with your 'minor' qualifier). With regards to administrative actions I am seeking, I am not entirely sure of what actions I can seek, could you elaborate on what the procedure is with cases of vandalism and canvassing? Or point me to where I can read on it? I just want them to cease their activities, this is a very important subject as such their behaviour should not be tolerated.

About the walls of text, I was unaware this was frowned upon, I apologies. In my defence, the main claim against the article, and I quote editor AcidSnow, was that " very few individuals classify these events as a whole as a genocide" and that the Somali State may have also victimised other groups thus Isaaq genocide was not a subject worthy of an article. Me citing the very respected and established sources, like the UN, Human Rights Watch, World Bank and various scholars on the subject of genocide like Israel Charny in addition to international media was to answer those claims. I honestly would not know how else to answer them, would responding with links to pages of the books that discuss the issue made a better response (but then whoever is reading will end reading even more texts from the links)? How would you have countered those claims without resorting to quoting from neutral sources? I am new here so very open to learning how these mattered are resolved. Kzl55 (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

One last thing to point out, and a very important point to highlight. This may explain the energy and 'walls of text' involved in this discussion. I do not know the background of the aforementioned editor, or indeed if they are Somali or not, their particular interest however suggests they may be. The civil war has done a lot of damage to Somali social fabric along clan lines, there are deep-seated issues and distrust based on clan. Depending on your background you could be either from a group that fell victim to acts of genocide or someone whose clan perpetrated said acts using state assets. In doing so the issue, despite the clarity with which an outsider can deal with it, and abundance of resources documenting it, becomes very polarising for Somalis. This situation becomes like asking someone from a Hutu background to accept the Tutsi claim of genocide that their people may have committed, something they were unaware of due to upbringing, environment and such. I say this because the possibility that the editor's opposition to a well sourced article that does not deviate from scholarly consensus may stem from belonging to different groups than the Isaaq in question, which if accepted, may indirectly cast their own clan as part of the 'other group', i.e. the victimiser. This is one of the reasons why despite the wealth of scholarly consensus on the specific targeting of Isaaq and the well documented cases of mass murder with intention of extermination, all of the evidence from UN reports to world media coverage, many Somalis belonging to other clans still choose to refuse to accept that Isaaq genocide happened. I hope that makes sense. Kzl55 (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kzl55: You have to understand that when I say I am not going to read AcidSnow's wall-of-text above, that's not a statement of partiality towards you. I will also not read walls of text posted by you. While other editors likely scrolled through this thread, rolled their eyes at the above, and simply moved on, I'm in too deep not to clarify this for you directly, especially given that you pinged me (most of the pinging I've been receiving recently was abusive, and logging in and seeing those notifications is not as pleasant as it perhaps should be, so I would appreciate it if you don't do so any more). You and AcidSnow have a content dispute. Both of you have apparently stepped somewhat over the line of civility. AcidSnow did something that you and perhaps others consider to be canvassing, but you did something that would have made notifying a small number of knowledgeable users justified (as it was literally the only way to get outside input after you made the discussion unreadable). Nothing is going to come of this thread until a new, properly formatted, AFD is opened. This thread should be closed pending that action. If you post WP:TLDR commentary in the next AFD, it could be seen as deliberate filibustering, and you may be reported here for disruptive behaviour, so I urge you to be careful going forward. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I was attempting to respond to all of Kzl55's statements, but I understand know. Though, Kzl55 is still making PERSONALATTACKS once again, see: [195] and even in his latest replies! The former occurred on a different discussion that they made. So I would like to ask again, if there's anything an administrator can do, then let it be so.

In addition, please refrain from misrepresenting my statements Kzl55. We can continue this discussion in the coming days. Nor did Hijiri88 agree that I was canvassing, even in a small case (see here: [196]. AcidSnow (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@AcidSnow: He may well have posted personal attacks against you in the above massive wall of text, but I have no intention of reading it. I recommend you just forget about it for now, open the new AFD, and if there is any further disruption then you can come back here and open a new thread. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

What makes you think it was a personal attack? I was discussing why I think the issue is very polarising for Somalis, and why people of a certain Somali background may be inclined to ignore or outright dismiss a very well documented subject. You are being very unreasonable. Please cease the disruptions.Kzl55 (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to that specifically, but to claim that ones edits may be motivated by their origins is nothing more than another attack. It wasn't solely a general statement and it cast doubts on the rest of their edits. So I ask again, please stop. AcidSnow (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Cordless Larry (talk) it was you who has suggested to open a WP:AN/I canvassing against the user AcidSnow talk) after i showed you what he did [197] so why bash the user Kzl55 talk about using walls of text when you have said that before on the talk page and knowing that he was against three other persons at the same time and one was called by the AcidSnow talk like i have showed you ,and to the Hijiri 88聖やや i say to you just read my wall and you will find that i was blocked then unblocked because of him because he accused me twice not once on the same matter and he is good at playing the victim by saying words like (series of personal attacks) so i say to him please cut it out. and i don't see the need of opening anew AfD discussion about this matter because if their argument is the use of WP:PROPAGANDA and other similar Wikipedia symbols without backing it with sources and links then rather using words like i think and i imagine and i.... and i.... and repeat the same answers given by the user Kzl55 talk it will be a waste of time this is my opinion. Bysomalilander (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Technically, I was just saying that this was the correct place for accusations of canvassing, not suggesting that you do so. I do agree that AcidSnow should be careful, though. While they may have disagreed with Soupforone in the past, this seems to me something that they would clearly agree on. Anyway, I was offering friendly advice to Kzl55, Bysomalilander. Concise comments are much more likely to get read than walls of text. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

May I ask why you think that this is something that we would agree CordlessLarry? Anyways, I never accused Bysomalilander of being a sock or a puppet master (what he was incorrectly blocked for:[198]), rather that they were restoring the same things as one, see here: [199]. They also made unnecessary statements against me in response: [200]. In addition, if you look up above you would clearly see that I provided diffs for my statements rather than my Imagination. AcidSnow (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Just my intuition from my knowledge of your and Sourforone's contributions, AcidSnow. I also wonder what made you choose the three particular editors, out of all those who edit articles about this region of the world? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't really make sense to me, but it is your intuition CordlessLarry. Please read the first paragraph of my initial reply. In addition, it is two individuals, not three. AcidSnow (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, AcidSnow - it was indeed two. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

All is forgiven. AcidSnow (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I note that Soupforone had already told you that they though the article was "propaganda". That might actually mean that it wasn't canvassing for you to inform Soupforone about the deletion discussion, since they were already involved. Others might be able to offer a more informed view on that, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes. If you read my first paragraph of my initial reply, then you should also understand the situation with AlaskaLava. AcidSnow (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, though that does make me wonder why you would single AlaskaLava out for their view! Cordless Larry (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Read it again, especially my comment on all three users (including Awale-Abdi) and the distinction between those of Kzl55. AcidSnow (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, well I think my point stands that there are other editors who are also knowledgeable about the region and who might well have offered a different opinion, but I think the lesson here is that it might just be better in future (i.e if you restart the AfD) to post a central notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Somalia instead. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Cordless Larry (talk) sorry but what kind of a answer is that? you see that it was done to with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and still you let him lose why?Bysomalilander (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I notified those who were also active since many are not. Your comment is helpful nonetheless. But note the distinction between my actions and that of Kzl55. I suggest that they once again familiarize themselves with WP:BOOMERANG and WP:NPA. AcidSnow (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

If an administrator sees fit to take action, Bysomalilander, I'm sure they will. I was just offering my opinion as someone who spotted the malformed AfD and the accusations of canvassing. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

thanks Cordless Larry (talk) it's really frustrating and hope too that an administrator sees fit to take action so lets hope . Bysomalilander (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Cordless Larry I note that AcidSnow was the one to inform Soupforone of the discussion to begin with, it could have well been a stealth canvassing tactic. Inform those who would support you of the discussion to get them involved and then there would be no need to inform them of the AfD as they are already part of the discussion. We will never know. One fact remains, AcidSnow informed two editors that ended up supporting them. That can not be ignored. There were three votes in total (I wonder how many active editors have shown interest in Somali subjects?), your hunch is absolutely right, if you have a Somali background or a history of editing Somali pages, it is not hard at all to know from previous interactions what someone's stance on a particular subject might be. It is a clear case of canvassing for votes. Two votes that were solicited directly and one that self identified as an acquaintance of AcidSnow. I am quite disturbed by this behaviour as this article is about a very important subject, yet AcidSnow is continually opposing it through vandalism by twice blanking the page (via redirections), then starting an AfD, and then canvassing support for its deletion. They seem to be taking this quite personally. Kzl55 (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Could some uninvolved user close thread? I've posted too many times (even editing the article once) to be considered uninvolved. At present, it doesn't seem likely that this will be viewed as anything other than a content dispute. A new AFD should be opened, and if there is any more disruption then it can be discussed here. I suspect that at least one of the parties has been behaving disruptively on the article talk page with the goal of filibustering the discussion, and has been trying to spin this as the other party behaving disruptively, but this can't be confirmed unless this thread is closed and a new AFD is opened. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Catflap08 violation of ArbCom TBAN

I stumbled upon an ANI section relation to Hijiri88, who has an IBAN with Catflap08, where the question of if Hijiri88 is abiding by said IBAN. One user noted that Catflap08 had made some recent edits after not editing for basically a year.[201] So first I found an apparent admission of guilt on his talk page,[202] and then what he was admitting to doing.[203] According to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88#Catflap08: Topic ban (I) (a case in which I was involved in), Catflap08 is "indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to Nichiren Buddhism and its adherents, broadly construed." Soka Gakkai, the article he edited with an edit summary of ":-)", is about a Nichiren Buddhist organization, thus putting him in violation of the TBAN placed by ArbCom.

Therefore, I am requesting that Catflap08 be blocked for no ness than one month as prescribed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88#Enforcement. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 07:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

He broke his sanctions to add YouTube links... Not very bright. 2600:1017:B01B:777D:3422:2AEB:E24E:8AAE (talk) 08:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I have blocked Catflap08 for violating his topic ban. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah, you did not leave a block notice on their talk page. Softlavender (talk) 10:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

P.S.: I agree that the block should be one month (rather than only 72 hours), since the user, who has only edited twice in the past 11 months [204], is actively bragging about violating the tban on their talk page [205], and since the edit, and its edit summary, were clearly made as a deliberate and overt flouting of the ban. Softlavender (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Weird... I definitely notified the user... apparently the block notice I left didn't save. Done - Thanks for letting me know, Softlavender. After taking some time to think about the block duration I applied, I decided to extend the block to one month, as it's clearly what should be done. This is my first time applying a block due to ArbCom enforcement... I guess I'm just not used to applying blocks like this. Either way, you're absolutely right - it's what I should applied in the first place. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Holy blurp—Catflap's comment was basically a "block me, please"! Given it's been so long since he last edited, and how brazen he was with the edit and talk-page comment, what is a one-month block supposed to achieve? It's obviously not going to prevent the same behaviour. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'm undoing the good-faith non-admin close of this thread because obviously a one-month block will not affect Catflap in the least, since they had previously not edited in 11 months. I think it's time to discuss a site ban of Catflap, since this edit was clearly antagonistic and self-advertised, and had a trolling smiley as an edit summary. Clearly the edit was made to antagonize and defy the community, and clearly Catflap is no longer here to build an encyclopedia but only to deliberately disrupt. Softlavender (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed site ban

This edit seems to make it abundantly clear that User:Catflap08 is blatantly WP:NOTHERE - As such, I would like to propose an indefinite site ban. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support - As proposer. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Bender the Bot is malfunctioning

Personal history on Eddy Curry On his girlfriend who was murdered with THEIR DAUGHTER (yes it was proven that Ava Curry was Eddy Curry daughter the end) not her daughter but both children suffered indirectly of their father actions by the lawyer she was affiliated with to obtain child support for the children — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:8402:CE40:C0A6:7788:5831:B603 (talk) 13:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

All Bender the Bot has done on that article is change HTTP to HTTPS - it has done nothing to change article content. Please take concerns about article content to the article talk page bearing in mind the requirements of WP:BLP - even talk page discussions need to be careful about unsubstantiated or undue accusations.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I, too, would like to complain about Bender the Bot's long-term conduct, including death threats ("Kill all humans!") and profanity and incivility ("Bite my shiny metal ---"). This is the conduct of a Wikipedian who has been up all night not drinking. Ribbet32 (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

FkpCascais again pushing POV

Based on this, I think it's safe to close this as a waste of time.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Again. I don't want to waste time so I'll just leave links so people who are familiar with this guy can react, or not. [206] [207] Here's one report where he was warned against such behavior. Other reports are also documented, but I didn't link them. [208] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.195.245 (talk • contribs) Again. I don't want to waste time... You've done exactly the opposite: you're wasting the time of everyone who has to figure out what you're talking about. So either do so, or I'm going to hat this until you do. --Calton | Talk 16:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Personal Attacks by Niteshift36

Niteshift36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an editor on the Betsy DeVos talk page, can't seems to resist directing malicious lewd/homophobic personal attacks at me. Despite being warned twice to knock it off, the attacks have continued and the editor in question has dug in their heels and persists in defending such attacks, despite their being prohibited by policy.

The first attack was as follows:

“It's obvious you like Dick and spend a lot of time thinking about Dick, explain why your interest in Dick belongs in the article.”[209]

I cautioned the editor to stop making these types of comments.[210]

Instead of heeding the warning and backing off, the editor in question doubled down on the attack with the following reply:

“It's not my fault and if it hurts your feelings that I pointed out how much time you spend thinking about Dick or how much Dick you should see, there's nothing I can do about that.”[211]

Just yesterday, the same editor decided to re-launch the same attack:

“Apparently, you've given up your obsession with Dick”[212]

I responded by pointing out that comments of this nature constitute a personal attack. I asked the editor again to stop making such attacks and advised him/her to strike the comment from the Talk page.[213] As per policy, I also provided a WP:NPA warning template on the editors’s talk page.[214]

Instead of striking the comment and/or apologizing, or even acknowledging that such comments are problematic, the editor smugly defended the attack[215] and is showing no sign of modifying their behavior or recognizing that it constitutes a user conduct issue.

This has gone beyond merely being disruptive. It has created a hostile editing environment and necessitates admin intervention to put a stop to it, as I fear this out of control behavior will only get worse. A block would be warranted at this point to send out a clear signal to the editor that such behavior is not tolerated at WP.

Incidentally, concurrent with the issue I am having with this editor, another editor on the same talk page is also now complaining that they are being personally attacked by Niteshift36.[216] Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

That conduct is unnecessarily hostile. The article is subject to WP:ARBAPDS discretionary sanctions and Niteshift36 has been previously alerted. I recommend taking this to WP:AE.- MrX 17:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to look into this and suggesting WP:AE as a remedy. That will be next step. The editor's reply below to this notice shows that there is no remorse or even the slightest bit of awareness as to why this kind of behavior is problematic and wholly unacceptable. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• As for Red's allegation, the comments may be sarcastic, but they're not a personal attack. Rhode Island Red has done more than his share of commenting on the contributor instead of content, so for him to suddenly play the victim is really dishonest. Much of this isn't Red and his allegedly hurt feelings, it's about the fact that I opposed editing by him and his ilk and then, as others came in for RfC's etc, his positions were shown to be against consensus. Truthfully, I see this as more an attempt to "eliminate the resistance" than to improve the encyclopedia. As for the comment that I did strike through, it was, in face, a completely false statement being made, but I softened my words. If one lies, one should not be surprised when the lies are called false. Again, I don't believe this complaint is because Red actually felt attacked or is worried about the good of the project, but that's just my opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Whether a personal attack or not, they are clearly juvenile and inappropriate. Please grow up and try to act like an adult. Paul August ☎ 18:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I saw the notice about this posting on Niteshift36's talk page, which happened to be on my watchlist because I'd complained to him about his personal comments and attacks on a different page. He dismissed the complaint and deleted the post.[217] His comments on Talk:Smith & Wesson M&P15 have tended towards personal remarks and stonewalling in place of providing sources or stating policies. All of that makes engaging in discussion both uncomfortable and fruitless. So I endorse Rhode Island Red's concerns about this editor's behaviour. Felsic2 (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Of course you do Felsic. Just like Red, you obstruct, obstruct and obstruct. You've resorted to making claims that are easily proven to be false, refused to heed consensus.... and now you try this. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be a chronic behavior problem and a hostile war-like approach to editing. Thanks for weighing in. Looks like WP:AE is warranted. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• You do realize that if Arbcom starts looking at the DS for that article, it will also look at your violations of it as well, don't you? The boomerang is always around. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

You are shooting yourself in the foot by trying to intimidate me and throwing gas on the fire. You could have saved yourself by recognizing that your indefensible behavior is wildly inappropriate; apologizing; and promising to stop. I have no qualms whatsoever about taking this to WP:AE as it seems to be the only way to curtail further attacks. You have sealed your own fate. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• See, this is part of the problem. You see things that aren't there. I didn't try to intimidate you. I can't threaten you. I'm not an admin, so there's nothing I can do to you. What I did actually do was point out that sometimes these things boomerang. Many times, I've seen people come here, thinking that if they're first to complain, their own conduct will be ignored and seen it boomerang. Since you've violated the DS and engaged in some less than civil conduct of your own, I merely pointed out that you aren't excused merely because you were first to complain. Any threat or intimidation is solely of your own making. I clearly stated that my remarks were "sarcastic" and "snarky". Having been around Wikipedia for many years, I've seen "wildly inappropriate behavior" and a pun based on the name of a person in the discussion isn't even close to that. You've proven yourself to be unwilling to listen to the points of others. Case in point: The RfC about the Academi/Blackwater description. You were all "overwhelming keep", having rejected my position as uninformed. In the end, somewhere around 9 more editors (most uninvolved) opined it was you that was in the wrong. Still, you treated me like I had no idea what I was doing. Ditto with adding the net worth of the subjects father in law. You told me countless times how wrong I was and how I didn't get the applicable policies. How many others came in and told you that you were wrong? You want an admission? Fine, I admit that your obstructionism may have led me to be sarcastic and less civil than I should have been. Perhaps if you became more open to discussion instead of attempting to demagogue, you'd find people being more pleasant. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

This edit[218] is troubling. The edit summary implies that Niteshift36 thinks that it is OK to be rude if he believes that someone is telling a lie. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• I haven't seen Niteshift36's edits, and am not commenting on them, but I suggest everyone here take a close look at Felsic2's editing behaviour, a totally unacceptable very tendentious and disruptive behaviour that can make anyone who disagrees with them very frustrated. Such as on Talk:Smith & Wesson M&P15 where Felsic2 totally refuses to accept that other editors don't agree with them, and starts section after section to discuss the same thing, his repeated attempts to get material about a shooting into the article, in order to wear their opponents out, and drive them away from the article. Even lying about having support from other editors, when no such support exists on the page, in a deliberate attempt to mislead other editors. I also suggest you read previous discussions about Felsic2 here on WP:ANI: #1 and #2. Discussions about the same kind of behaviour they're now showing on Talk:Smith & Wesson M&P15. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Other editors, including yourself, have made misstatements on that page. The issue is whether a single misstatement is justification for Niteshift36 to repeatedly call me a sorry liar. Based on this posting it appears to be a common practice of his. These personal attacks did nothing to help us arrive at a consensus and merely made the talk page a more hostile place. Felsic2 (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

What misstatements have I made? Your behaviour doesn't excuse Niteshift36's behaviour, but it was a deliberate lie, since there's no way you could have so totally misread the consensus on the page, where not a single other editor posted in support of your edit (an edit you tried to sneak in anyway, hoping noone would notice, just like you have done on other articles before...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Since this thread is about Niteshift36 lets keep the focus there. I'll reply to your question on your talk page. Felsic2 (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Anyone who posts a complaint here is as much fair game as the editor they're complaining about, so there's no reason not to discuss your behaviour too. Especially since it's your tendentious and disruptive behaviour that caused the frustration Niteshift36 vented in their comments... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Above, you wrote, "Your behaviour doesn't excuse Niteshift36's behaviour." Now you seem to be saying the opposite. Anyway, if you want to make a case against me go ahead, but just casting aspersions and making threats is unhelpful. Felsic2 (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

There you go again. What threats have I made? Felsic2 has started a parallell discussion on my talk page too, if anyone is interested. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Ret.Prof and WP:NOTBLOG

We have here an editor who, as per his edit history, has not made an edit outside of user space, with the exception of commenting at a few RfAs, since May 2016, over a thousand edits ago. All other edits have been in his personal user space. This may well be related to his having been previously topic banned from his sole topic of interest, early Christian history, from which he had earlier been banned for three months after fraudulently misrepresenting a source. I question whether at this point he is in fact here to develop an encyclopedia, or simply to use as a web host for his ideas. John Carter (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

In that case WP:MFD - not sanctions. Plenty of people not here to build an encyclopedia - and many who are are not capable. Leaky Caldron 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Has there been any attempt to simply talk it over with them and advise them their editing may not be productive. I don't immediately see any, and wonder if going right to ANI might not be premature. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there a reason to attempt to reason with someone who has already more or less been told that the material he seeks to add to articles is not suited there, and who then adds it in userspace apparently in what could be seen as an attempt to WP:GAME the system so that his personal theories are available on the net here? John Carter (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

MFD it. Either people will agree and it will be deleted or they wont and it wont. Either way its hardly a big issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• MfDing their talk paqe may take care of that specific page, but it doesn't answer the question of whether RetProf is here to contribute to the improvement of the encyclopedia or not. We're not a webhost, nor a place to feature your ideas, our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, and if RetProf has declined to participate in doing that because he's been banned from his preferred subject, then he's clearly NOTHERE to do that. I would say that a warning from an admin that if he doesn't start to participate in the building of the encyclopedia in some fashion (could be content work, could be categorization, could be many different things that aren't talk pages) in a certain amount of time, then he's facing an indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• As mentioned above, MfD would be the appropriate avenue. I have considered this from time to time, but never done anything about it. StAnselm (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL

• Ksenia2727 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was given several warnings related to WP:CRYSTALBALL, but failed to comply or communicate. Requesting to block the user.--Richie Campbell (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It looks like he's creating "placeholders" for 2017 events. That's not so unusual. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Boxing Fan

My patience has worn out with User:Boxing Fan, in the sense that they're constantly falling woefully short of WP:CIR and not giving a flying crap about MOS:BOXING. They've already had a block for edit warring against consensus on boxing weight classes, but lately they're continuing to mess with things like:

• Boxing record tables, by incorrectly changing content ([219], for which they were warned multiple times for doing the same thing at a related article in December: [220], [221])
  • Breaking up small text parameters and re-linking elements that only need linking on the first instance ([222], [223])
  • Flagrantly changing result types to read incorrectly ([224], [225], [226], and heaps more). There's already serial vandals who've done this for years; we don't need another.
• Adding redundant infobox stats ([227], [228], [229]; for which, interestingly, an IP was very recently blocked for making the exact same edits)
• Random outbursts of foul language ([230])

It's not my place to say that this user is WP:NOTHERE, and my goodness I've tried communicating 'til I'm blue in the face, but they're certainly not in the habit of making constructive edits, nor are all the warnings in the world doing anything. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

L'honorable (again)

L'honorable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Disruptive editor, blocked on NL and DE wiki, block on Commons in process.
• Complete disregard for any rule combined with megalomania (he's actually in the process of teaching the Wiki-UK office in London about copyright.)
• Copied his talk page from Commons to his enwiki talk w/o proper attribution.
  • My last real edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AL%27honorable&type=revision&diff=760150382&oldid=760148577 (23:53, 14. Jan. 2017‎), still it seems I communicated with him on enwiki, which I didn't.
  • He selectively copied from Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:L%27honorable
• His insult from https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AL%27honorable&type=revision&diff=230435711&oldid=230434151 copied to his talk here as well.

Of course he'll try to sweet talk himself out of this again, poor little user who doesn't know better approach.

I request a block for constantly violating rules, insulting a user on another project and knowingly copying this insult to EN-wiki. Please don't forget to remove the insult from his talk page. Thanks. --Hedwig in Washington ^(TALK) 00:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Most of this appears to be regarding a disagreement you're having with the user on commons. Can you link anything on enwiki? SQL^{Query me!} 00:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Search his talk for are you sound which he wrote and then copied from his Commons talk to here. Read the sentence. That should suffice for a block. Did certainly suffice on Commons. In the end I don't care if he's allowed to edit here or not. At least clean the talk page of his insults and advise the troll not to copy talk pages w/o preserving the history. Maybe somebody here can educate this guy that the projects are not about him. --Hedwig in Washington ^(TALK) 01:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)